Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment ProjectEnvironmental Impact Statement

Volume 1 | Main Document

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Statement

IBE0807/EIS01 [Final]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EIS NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY VOLUME 4

1.0 Introduction 1.1 1.1 Project Summary 1.1 1.2 Project Justification (Statement of Need) 1.1 1.3 Consideration of Alternatives 1.32 1.4 The Planning Process 1.39 1.5 Scope and Format of the EIS 1.56

2.0 Consultation Process 2.1 2.1 Introduction 2.1 2.2 Consultation and the Masterplan 2.1 2.3 Consultation and the ABR Project 2.4 2.4 Conclusion 2.13

3.0 Site Description 3.1 3.1 Site Location and Site Context 3.1 3.2 Existing Land Use 3.3

4.0 Project Description 4.1

4.1 Proposed Development Works 4.1 4.2 Construction Activities 4.24 4.3 Operational Activities 4.30

5.0 Flora and Fauna 5.1 5.1 Birds 5.1 5.2 Marine Mammals 5.20 5.3 Terrestrial Ecology 5.39 5.4 Benthic Ecology and Fisheries 5.58

6.0 Landscape and Visual 6.1

6.1 Introduction 6.1 6.2 Methodology 6.2 6.3 Receiving Environment 6.7 6.4 Project Description 6.10 6.5 Landscape and Visual Impacts 6.11 6.6 Mitigation Measures 6.19 6.7 Residual Impacts 6.19 6.8 Interactions 6.19 6.9 Conclusions 6.20


IBE0807/EIS01 ii [Final]

7.0 Air and Climate 7.1 7.1 Noise and Vibration 7.1 7.2 Air Quality and Climate 7.35 8.0 Material Assets 8.1

8.1 Transportation 8.1 8.2 Background 8.5 8.3 Existing Conditions 8.13 8.4 Baseline Traffic Conditions 8.26 8.5 Proposed Development 8.31 8.6 Impact of Proposal on Road Networks 8.34 8.7 Cruise Ships 3.36 8.8 Construction Traffic 8.39 8.9 Traffic Assessment Conclusions 8.43 8.10 Services 8.44

9.0 Coastal Processes 9.1 9.1 General Introduction 9.1 9.2 Methodology 9.1 9.3 Data Collection and Site Surveys 9.1 9.4 Proposed Channel Design 9.3 9.5 Modelling the Impact of the Channel on Coastal Processes 9.5 9.6 The Impact of the Proposed Capital Dredging Scheme on the Tidal Regime 9.7 9.7 The Impact of the Proposed Capital Dredging Scheme on The Wave Climate 9.12 9.8 The Impact of the Proposed Capital Dredging Scheme on the Sediment Transport Regime and Morphological Stability of the Channel 9.17 9.9 Dredging Activity and Disposal of Dredge Material 9.28 9.10 Conclusions 9.51

10.0 Water 10.1 10.1 Receiving Water Environment 10.1 10.2 Potential Impacts 10.11 10.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts 10.14 10.4 Mitigation Measures 10.15 10.5 Flood Risk Assessment 10.19 11.0 Geology and Soils 11.1 11.1 Assessment Methodology 11.1 11.2 Existing Environment 11.2 11.3 Potential Impacts 11.17 11.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts 11.20 11.5 Mitigation Measures 11.20


IBE0807/EIS01 iii [Final]

12.0 Cultural Heritage 12.1 12.1 Assessment Methodology 12.1 12.2 Existing Environment 12.7 12.3 Terrestrial Inspection 12.27 12.4 Marine Geophysical Survey 12.28 12.5 Underwater Inspection/Diver Truthing 12.39 12.6 Impact Assessment 12.41 12.7 Mitigation Measures 12.47 12.8 Level 2 Industrial Archaeology Heritage Study 12.51

13.0 Human Beings 13.1 13.1 Baseline Information 13.1 13.2 Potential Impact of the Proposed Project 13.11 13.3 Mitigation Measures 13.17 13.4 Residual Impacts 13.18 14.0 Interactions and In-Combination Effects 14.0 14.1 Interactions 14.1 14.2 In-combination Effects 14.4 14.3 The Next Steps 14.6 14.4 Technical Difficulties 14.7

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY B1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS B21

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Appendix for Chapter 1 (Volume 2) Appendix 2 Appendix for Chapter 2 (Volume 2) Appendix 3 There is no Appendix for Chapter 3 Appendix 4 Appendix for Chapter 4 (Volume 2) Appendix 5 Appendix for Chapter 5 (Volume 2) Appendix 6 Appendix for Chapter 6 (Volume 3) Appendix 7 Appendix for Chapter 7 (Volume 2) Appendix 8 Appendix for Chapter 8 (Volume 3) Appendix 9 Appendix for Chapter 9 (Volume 2) Appendix 10 There is no Appendix for Chapter 10 Appendix 11 Appendix for Chapter 11 (Volume 2) Appendix 12 Appendix for Chapter 12 (Volume 2) Appendix 13 There is no Appendix for Chapter 13


IBE0807/EIS01 iv [Final]

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 ABR Project in the context of DPC’s Masterplan 2012 – 2040 1.3 Figure 1.2 Lands re-acquired or in the process of being re-acquired by DPC 1.4 Figure 1.3 Location of Dublin Port’s main existing berths 1.7 Figure 1.4 Trends in Port Tonnages 1.12 Figure 1.5 Trends in Port Volumes (‘000 tonnes) 2007 – 2013 1.15 Figure 1.6 Trends in Dublin Port gross tonnage and GDP, 1990 – 2012 1.17 Figure 1.7 Trends in Dublin Port’s cruise business 2004 – 2012 1.20 Figure 1.8 Projections of cruise passenger numbers to 2032 1.20 Figure 1.9 Projections of cruise numbers to 2032 1.21 Figure 1.10 Indicative progression of the deepening of the bar and channel in Dublin Port since 1800 1.22 Figure 1.11 Irelands International Spatial context in broad terms 1.41 Figure 1.12 Format of the Environmental Impact Statement 1.67 Figure 2.1 Masterplan Documentation 2.3 Figure 3.1 Location of Dublin Port 3.1 Figure 3.2 Location of Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52 & 53 3.2 Figure 3.3 Existing Navigation Channel and fairway bathymetry to MSL 3.2 Figure 3.4 Proposed Navigation Channel and fairway bathymetry to MSL 3.2 Figure 3.5 Alexandra Basin West – Existing Land Use 3.3 Figure 3.6 Berths 52 & 53 (Terminal 5) – Existing Land Use 3.6 Figure 4.1A Site Location Plan 4.1 Figure 4.1B Alexandra Basin West Works 4.2 Figure 4.1C Works at Existing Berths 52/53 4.3 Figure 4.2 Typical Cross Sections of Combi-Wall Construction 4.5 Figure 4.3 Alexandra Basin West Ro-Ro Jetty Form of Construction 4.6 Figure 4.4 Extent of North Wall Quay Extension Removal 4.7 Figure 4.5 Location of Conservation Zone Recesses 4.8 Figure 4.6 Mooring Ring Opening Detail 4.9 Figure 4.7 North Wall Lighthouse Detail 4.9 Figure 4.8 Alexandra Basin Infrastructure to be removed 4.10 Figure 4.9 Berth 52/53 Infrastructure to be removed 4.13 Figure 4.10 Section through Structure at Poolbeg Marina 4.15 Figure 4.11 Dredge Material Locations 4.17 Figure 4.12 Project Construction Phases 4.26 Figure 5.1.1 Study area for winter bird monitoring in Tolka Estuary (outline in red) 5.2 Figure 5.1.2 Study area for seabird surveys in the shipping channel and approaches To Dublin Port 5.4 Figure 5.1.3 Results of Black Guillemots in Dublin Port on 17th May 2013 5.9 Figure 5.2.1 Location of observation points A & B for marine mammal survey, Dublin Bay 5.26 Figure 5.3.1 Temporal Variation in Bat Activity for each night (PM and AM) Throughout the 15 night survey period 5.52 Figure 5.3.2 Time of peak activity for each hour on the night of the 4th and 5th June 5.53 Figure 5.4.1 Map showing the positions of subtidal grab samples taken in Dublin Bay 5.59 Figure 5.4.2 May showing locations of subtidal video sampling positions (June 2013) 5.61 Figure 5.4.3 Ternary plot of PSA results from Dublin Bay 5.62 Figure 5.4.4 Distributions of PSA within the survey area 5.62 Figure 5.4.5 MDS plot of Dublin Bay fauna (Stress = 0.14). Group 1 are coloured Blue, Group 2 are coloured Red 5.65 Figure 5.4.6 Cluster dendogram indicating the distribution of sites based on faunal Distribution within the survey area of Dublin Bay 5.66 Figure 5.4.7 Representative imagery captured from the video taken along the inner Extent of the survey area. 5.67


IBE0807/EIS01 v [Final]

Figure 5.4.8 Representative imagery captured from the video taken along the inner Extent of the survey area. 5.68 Figure 5.4.9 Imagery captured from video data collected around the sites in close Proximity to the Poolbeg Lighthouse. 5.69 Figure 5.4.10 Imagery captured from video data collected around the outer stretches Of Dublin Bay 5.70 Figure 5.4.11 Imagery captured from video data collected around the outer stretches Of Dublin Bay 5.71 Figure 5.4.12 Imagery captured from video data collected around the outer extent Of the survey area 5.72 Figure 5.4.13 Habitat distribution map of benthic communities identified in the Present survey 5.74 Figure 5.4.14 Burford Bank dumpsite location 5.75 Figure 5.4.15 Sediment characterisation across the seabed of the dumpsite disposal Area. Data reproduced from INFOMAR (2010) 5.77 Figure 5.4.16 Sampling locations from the 1998 survey (red dots) and the 2011 Survey (orange dots) in the vicinity of the Burford Bank disposal area 5.78 Figure 5.4.17 Locations of fyke nets (May 17th and 18th 2013) and beam trawl Locations and May 17, 18th and June 5th 2013 5.82 Figure 5.4.18 (a) 2m beam trawl; (b) fyke net being deployed; (c) juvenile flatfish (plaice and dab); (d) brown shrimp (crangon); (e) Thornback ray Trawl T18; (f) Scaldfish 5.91 Figure 5.4.19 Areas subjected to maintenance dredging in 2012 5.93 Figure 5.4.20 Area of cSAC to be temporarily disturbed due to the extension of the Shipping channel 5.94 Figure 6.1 Zone of Visual Influence 6.21 Figure 6.2 Photomontage View Point Locations 6.22 Figure 6.3 Landscape Character Areas 6.23 Figure 7.1.1 Noise Monitoring and Noise Prediction Locations 7.2 Figure 7.1.2 Noise Contours from Construction Phase Scenario 1 in the Vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2 7.20 Figure 7.1.3 Noise Contours from Construction Phase Scenario 1 in the Vicinity of Clontarf 7.21 Figure 7.1.4 Noise Contours from Construction Phase Scenario 2 in the Vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2 7.22 Figure 7.1.5 Noise Contours from Construction Phase Scenario 2 in the Vicinity of Clontarf 7.22 Figure 7.1.6 Noise Contours from Existing Port Operations in the Vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2 7.27 Figure 7.1.7 Noise Contours from Proposed Port Operations in the Vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2‘ 7.27 Figure 7.2.1 Windrose for the Dublin Airport Met Station 1942 to 2010 (source: www.met.ie) 7.50 Figure 8.1.1 Site Location Plan (Location of ABR Project in relation to Dublin Port 8.2 Figure 8.2 1 Transport objectives from Dublin Port Masterplan – SEA 8.7 Figure 8.2.2 Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines - Thresholds for Transport Assessments 8.8 Figure 8.2.3 Advisory Thresholds for Traffic and Transport Assessment where National Roads are affected 8.9 Figure 8.2.4 Sub-threshold Criteria for Traffic and Transport Assessment 8.10 Figure 8.2.5 Extracts from the Local Action Plan, City of Dublin July 2011 8.13 Figure 8.3.1 Existing Transport Modes within the Vicinity of the Port 8.14 Figure 8.3.2 Cycling Facilities - Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan 8.17 Figure 8.3.3 Public Transport Facilities – Dublinbike 8.17 Figure 8.3.4 Public Transport Facilities - Luas Light Rail System 8.18


IBE0807/EIS01 vi [Final]

Figure 8.3.5 Public Transport Facilities - Luas System - Red Line 8.19 Figure 8.3.6 Public Transport Facilities - Luas System - Red Line – Operating 8.20 Times Figure 8.3.7 Public Transport Facilities - Luas System - Red Line – Frequency 8.20 Figure 8.3.8 Public Transport Facilities - Luas System - Red Line - Journey Times 8.21 Figure 8.3.9 Existing Rail Spurs within Dublin Port 8.22 Figure 8.3.10 Existing Accesses to Dublin Port 8.23 Figure 8.3.11 Proposed Improvements associated with ABR Project 8.25 Figure 8.4.1 Location of Traffic Survey Information 8.26 Figure 8.4.2 Existing Daily Traffic Flows (2013)- Hourly Profile (Average Day) 8.29 Figure 8.4.3 National Traffic Growth Forecasts: Annual Growth Factors 8.30 Figure 8.7.1 DPC Predictions of cruise passenger numbers to 2032 8.38 Figure 8.7.2 DPC Predictions of cruise ship numbers to 2032 8.38 Figure 8.8.2 ABR Project - Construction Vehicles per Month 8.42 Figure 9.3 Existing approach channel bathymetry to Mean Sea Level (MSL) 9.4 Figure 9.4 Proposed approach channel bathymetry to Mean Sea Level (MSL) 9.4 Figure 9.5 Extent and bathymetry of the ICPSS tidal surge model (left) and east coast wave model (right) 9.5 Figure 9.6 Extent and bathymetry of the Dublin Bay model (left) and the mesh structure of the Dublin Bay model (right) 9.6 Figure 9.7 Typical spring ebb flow pattern – Existing Port Channel 9.8 Figure 9.8 Typical spring flood flow pattern - Existing Port Channel 9.8 Figure 9.9 Typical spring ebb flow pattern – Post Capital Dredging Scheme 9.9 Figure 9.10 Typical spring flood flow pattern - Post Capital Dredging Scheme 9.9 Figure 9.11 Difference in mid spring ebb current velocity as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme 9.10 Figure 9.12 Difference in mid spring flood current velocity as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme 9.10 Figure 9.13 Difference in the mean spring ebb current velocity as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme 9.11 Figure 9.14 Difference in the mean spring flood current velocity as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme 9.11 Figure 9.15 North Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Existing Port Channel 9.13 Figure 9.16 North Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Post Capital Dredging Scheme 9.13 Figure 9.17 Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Existing Port Channel 9.14 Figure 9.18 Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Post Capital Dredging Scheme 9.14 Figure 9.19 South Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Existing Port Channel 9.15 Figure 9.20 South Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Post Capital Dredging Scheme 9.15 Figure 9.21 North Easterly Storm - Difference in significant wave heights at spring high water as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme 9.16 Figure 9.22 Easterly Storm - Difference in significant wave heights at spring high water as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme 9.16 Figure 9.23 South Easterly Storm - Difference in significant wave heights at spring high water as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme 9.17 Figure 9.24 Change in the depth of the approach channel between December 2007 and January 2008 (including maintenance dredging) 9.18 Figure 9.25 Change in the depth of the approach channel between March 2009 and March 2010 (no maintenance dredging) 9.18


IBE0807/EIS01 vii [Final]

Figure 9.26 Change in the depth of the approach channel between September 2011 and July 2012 (including maintenance dredging) 9.19 Figure 9.27 Morphological model simulation input data for a North Easterly storm event - Offshore wave height and period (upper diagram) and tidal regime (lower diagram) 9.21 Figure 9.28 Change in bed levels after a North Easterly storm event – Existing Port Channel 9.21 Figure 9.29 Change in bed levels after a North Easterly storm event - Post Capital Dredging Scheme 9.22 Figure 9.30 Difference in bed level change as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme - North Easterly storm event 9.22 Figure 9.31 Morphological model simulation input data for an Easterly storm event - Offshore wave height and period (upper diagram) and tidal regime 9.23 Figure 9.32 Change in bed levels after an Easterly storm event – Existing Port Channel 9.24 Figure 9.33 Change in bed levels after an Easterly storm event - Post Capital Dredging Scheme 9.24 Figure 9.34 Difference in bed level change as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme - Easterly storm event 9.25 Figure 9.35 Morphological model simulation input data for a South Easterly storm event - Offshore wave height and period (upper diagram) and tidal regime (lower diagram) 9.26 Figure 9.36 Change in bed levels after a South Easterly storm event – Existing Port Channel 9.26 Figure 9.37 Change in bed levels after a South Easterly storm event - Post Capital Dredging Scheme 9.27 Figure 9.38 Difference in bed level change as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme – South Easterly storm event 9.27 Figure 9.39 Location of the licensed dredged spoil disposal site 9.29 Figure 9.40 Total silt deposition after six months of continuous disposal of silt spoil material 9.32 Figure 9.41 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of high water neaps 9.33 Figure 9.42 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of mid ebb neaps 9.33 Figure 9.43 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of low water neaps 9.34 Figure 9.44 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of mid flood neaps 9.34 Figure 9.45 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of high water springs 9.35 Figure 9.46 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of mid ebb springs 9.35 Figure 9.47 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of low water springs 9.36 Figure 9.48 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of mid flood springs 9.36 Figure 9.49 Total sand deposition after six months of continuous disposal of sand spoil material 9.37 Figure 9.50 Mean suspended sediment concentration during the disposal of sand spoil material 9.38 Figure 9.51 Transport of the sand material from the spoil site at end of 10 day South Easterly storm event 9.39 Figure 9.52 Extent and bathymetry of the 3D Dublin Port model 9.41


IBE0807/EIS01 viii [Final]

Figure 9.53 Bathymetry of harbour area of 3D model of proposed development 9.41 Figure 9.54 Total silt deposition after six months of dredging of the outer section of the Liffey channel in the harbour 9.42 Figure 9.55 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of low water 9.43 Figure 9.56 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of mid flood 9.43 Figure 9.57 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of high water 9.44 Figure 9.58 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of mid ebb 9.44 Figure 9.59 Total silt deposition after six months of dredging of the middle section of the Liffey channel in the harbour 9.45 Figure 9.60 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of low water 9.46 Figure 9.61 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of mid flood 9.46 Figure 9.62 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of high water 9.47 Figure 9.63 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of mid ebb 9.47 Figure 9.64 Total silt deposition after six months of dredging of the inner section of the Liffey channel in the harbour 9.48 Figure 9.65 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of low water 9.49 Figure 9.66 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of mid flood 9.49 Figure 9.67 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of high water 9.50 Figure 9.68 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of mid ebb 9.50 Figure 10.1 Receiving water environment 10.2 Figure 10.2 Elements of WFD status 10.5 Figure 10.3 Water Framework Directive water body status 10.6 Figure 10.4 Bathing water quality in the Dublin area 2012 (EPA, 2013) 10.9 Figure 10.5 Nutrient sensitive areas 10.10 Figure 10.6 Extent of Irish Tidal and Storm Surge Model 10.20 Figure 10.7 Alexandra Basin West (existing) – Predicted impact of Coastal Flooding 10.23 Figure 10.8 Berth 52/53 (existing) – Predicted impact of Coastal Flooding 10.24 Figure 10.9 Tidal curve in Dublin Port for 1 in 200 year return period storm surge for existing harbour channel (Blue) and proposed harbour channel (Red). 10.27 Figure 10.10 Tidal level difference, proposed channel minus existing channel, at time of peak water level during 1 in 200 year return period storm surge 10.28 Figure 10.11 Tidal curve in Dublin Port for 1 in 100 year return period river flows for existing harbour channel (Blue)and proposed harbour channel (Red) 10.29 Figure 10.12 Tidal level difference, proposed channel minus existing channel, at time of high water level during 1 in 100 year return period river flows 10.30 Figure 10.13 Shows the plot of wave height differences (proposed minus existing channel) for the worst case scenario 10.31 Figure 10.14 Wave height difference plot (proposed minus existing) for water level 2.10m OD (4.61m CD) 10.32 Figure 10.15 Wave height difference plot (proposed minus existing) for water level 2.32m OD (4.83m CD) 10.32 Figure 10.16 Wave height difference plot (proposed minus existing) for water level 2.53m OD (5.04m CD) 10.33 Figure 10.17 Wave height difference plot (proposed minus existing) for water level 2.71m OD (5.22m CD) 10.33 Figure 10.18 Wave height difference plot (proposed minus existing) for water level 2.92m OD (5.43m CD) 10.33 Figure 10.19 Wave height difference plot (proposed minus existing) for water level 3.05m OD (5.56m CD) 10.34 Figure 11.1 Geology in and around Dublin Port 11.2


IBE0807/EIS01 ix [Final]

Figure 11.2 Location of samples taken for sediment quality Analysis - Alexandra Basin West 11.6 Figure 11.3 Location of samples taken for sediment quality analysis – Navigation Channel 11.7 Figure 11.4 Location of samples taken for sediment analysis – Navigation Channel 11.8 Figure 11.5 Location of samples taken for particle size analysis 11.9 Figure 11.6 Dredge Material Locations 11.17 Figure 12.1 Extent of Study Area 12.2 Figure 12.8.1 Location of industrial archaeological sites in survey area 12.59 Figure 13.1 Location of District Electoral Divisions (DEDs) in close proximity to Dublin Port Estate 13.3 Figure 13.2 Historical expansion of Dublin Port (Dublin Docklands Authority Masterplan 2008) 13.3 Figure 13.3 Location of amenities and recreation areas in close proximity to the Dublin Port Estate 13.4 Figure 13.4 Trends in Dublin Port’s cruise business 2004 to 2013 13.10 Figure 13.5 Dublin total economic impacts from cruise tourism, 2013 – 2014 (Bermello, Ajamil and Partners) 13.15 Figure 13.6 Projected percentage of cruise ships over 300 metres worldwide, 2012 – 2040 (Bermello, Ajamil & Partners) 13.16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 A Summary of the depths of Dublin Port’s main berths (current, proposed and ultimate) 1.8 Table 1.2 Overview of Ireland’s Ports (2012) 1.11 Table 1.3 Growth rates in Ports in the Republic of Ireland, 1990 – 2012 1.12 Table 1.4 Dublin Port’s long-term growth rates, 1950 – 2040 1.13 Table 1.5 Masterplan growth predictions 2010 – 2040 1.14 Table 1.6 Masterplan projections compared to actual cargo levels 2010 to 2013 (‘000 gross tonnes, five year rolling averages) 1.15 Table 1.7 Average annual growth rates by mode 1990 to 2013 1.16 Table 1.8 Trends in Dublin Port tonnage and population, 1951 to 2011 and extrapolated to 2046 1.18 Table 1.9 Draught handling capabilities at different channel depths 1.23 Table 1.10 Trends in average cargo sizes by mode, 1990 to 2013 1.23 Table 1.11 A selection of large ship characteristics in various modes 1.24 Table 1.12 Distribution of container ship lengths and draughts in the range 1,000 TEU to 3,500 TEU 1.25 Table 1.13 Container ship draughts in the range 1,000 TEU to 3,500 TEU 1.26 Table 1.14 Distribution of cruise ship lengths and draughts 1.27 Table 1.15 Assumed increase in average cargo volume per ship 2013 to 2040 1.28 Table 1.16 Trend in ship arrivals from 2013 to 2040 1.28 Table 1.17 Proportion of arriving ships that could enter Graving Dock #2 1.31 Table 1.18 Scoping Matrix 1.57 Table 2.1 Statutory and Non-Statutory bodies consulted as part of the ABR Process 2.5 Table 2.2 Summary of Written Responses from Consultees 2.6 Table 4.1 Berth 52/53 Infill Volumes 4.13 Table 4.2 Dredge Volumes 4.17 Table 4.3 Summary of Infill Works 4.19 Table 4.4 Summary of Port Activities 4.21


IBE0807/EIS01 x [Final]

Table 4.5 Typical Wastes Generated by the Construction Works and Recommended disposal/treatment options 4.28 Table 5.1.1 Special Conservation Interests for the SPAs in the areas surrounding Dublin Bay 5.5 Table 5.1.2 Overall mean of all counts and mean of peak counts for each species In the Tolka Estuary during the four winters 2009/10 to 2012/13 5.7 Table 5.1.3 Other bird species recorded in Alexandra Basin in 2013 5.10 Table 5.1.4 Total number of birds recorded in the shipping channel in 2013-2014 5.11 Table 5.1.5 Special Conservation Interests of SPAs recorded within Alexandra Basin West or the Dublin Port Shipping Channel 5.16 Table 5.1.7 Special Conservation Interests of SPAs and the frequency of Occurrence within the Dublin Port Shipping Channel 5.17 Table 5.2.1 Thresholds for onset of PTS, TTS and behavioural response to Impulsive anthropogenic noise 5.30 Table 5.3.1 Ecological Value of Features 5.44 Table 5.3.2 Criteria for Determining the Magnitude of Potential Ecological Impact 5.44 Table 5.3.3 Estimating the Overall Ecological Appraisal Category 5.45 Table 5.3.4 Protected Species identified within a 1 km buffer from the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment 5.48 Table 5.4.1 Positions of subtidal soft sediment sampling stations 5.58 Table 5.4.2 Positions of shallow water subtidal video survey stations 5.60 Table 5.4.3 PSA and Loss on Ignition (LOI) results from samples taken within Dublin Bay 5.63 Table 5.4.4 Diversity indices derived from the infaunal grab data from Dublin Bay 5.64 Table 5.4.5 Results from multivariate analysis of the fauna identified in each Faunal group identified in the survey area 5.65 Table 5.4.6 Total license quantity for disposal at sea for the Burford Bank dumpsite Location. 5.76 Table 5.4.7 Transitional water monitoring results for the Water Framework Directive 2008-2012 by Inland Fisheries Ireland 5.81 Table 5.4.8 Beam trawl locations May 17th, 18th and June 5th 2013 5.83 Table 5.4.9 Fish taken in 18 beam trawl and 2 fyke nets during the current Survey (May and June 2013) listed in decreasing order of abundance 5.84 Table 5.4.10 Fish and invertebrates taken in Trawls 1 to 18 and in 2 fyke nets 5.86 Table 5.4.11 List of some important species whose spawning and or nursery grounds Are located in the western Irish sea including off Dublin Bay 5.87 Table 5.4.12 Sea angling locations and species taken in and around Dublin Bay – Data from Dunlop 5.89 Table 5.4.13 Interim noise level criteria adopted by US state agencies also the Pacific coast 5.103 Table 5.4.14 An estimate of the distance in metres (columns 3-5) required to Attenuate pile driving noise at 3 decibel levels depending on the size Of the target species 5.105 Table 6.1 Significance of Landscape Impact 6.4 Table 6.2 Significance of Visual Impact 6.5 Table 7.1.1 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels at the façade of dwellings during construction 7.4 Table 7.1.2 Noise Threshold Limits at Nearest Sensitive Receptors for Drilling Rig Activities 7.5 Table 7.1.3 Internal Ambient Noise Levels for Living Space 7.6 Table 7.1.4 Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage (Ref BS5228-2:2009 7.8 Table 7.1.5 Recommended Vibration Level Thresholds for NRA Schemes 7.8 Table 7.1.6 Threshold Values for the Evaluation of Disturbance due to Vibration 7.9


IBE0807/EIS01 xi [Final]

Table 7.1.7 Noise Monitoring Results - Location 1 7.11 Table 7.1.8 Noise Monitoring Results - Location 2 7.12 Table 7.1.9 Noise Monitoring Results - Location 3 7.13 Table 7.1.10 Noise Monitoring Results - Location 4 7.14 Table 7.1.11 Noise Monitoring Results - Location 5 7.15 Table 7.1.12 Noise Survey of Cruise Liner Vessels 7.16 Table 7.1.13 Typical Plant and Equipment to be used During Construction Phase (Ref: BS5228:2009) 7.18 Table 7.1.14 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties from Construction Phase (Scenario 1) 7.20 Table 7.1.15 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties from Construction Phase (Scenario 2) 7.21 Table 7.1.16 Comparison of Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels with Noise Threshold Limits in NRA Guidelines (2004) and BS5229:2009 7.23 Table 7.1.17 Noise Model Predictions of Existing and Proposed Operational Phase Noise from Activities at Dublin Port 7.26 Table 7.2.1 Discrete Receptors employed in the model‘ 7.36 Table 7.2.2 Health and Odour Guidelines for H2S 7.39 Table 7.2.3 Limits as Specified in Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 (S.I. 180 of 2011). 7.39 Table 7.2.4 Target Values as specified in the Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, Nickel and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Regulations 2009 (S.I. 58 of 2009 7.40 Table 7.2.5 Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) as specified in the Environment Agency of England and Wales IPPC H1 Guidance Note 7.40 Table 7.2.6 Seveso sites adjacent to the proposed development 7.43 Table 7.2.7 Results of NOx monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A 7.44 Table 7.2.8 Results of PM10 monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A 7.45 Table 7.2.9 Results of SO2 monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A 7.46 Table 7.2.10 Results of CO monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A 7.47 Table 7.2.11 Results of VOC monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A 7.48 Table 7.2.12 Results of Heavy Metal monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A 7.49 Table 7.2.13 30-year Average Meteorological Data from Dublin Airport (Annual Values from 1981-2010 7.49 Table 7.2.14 Impact Assessment for Short Term Exposure (Maximum 1-hour averages) 7.52 Table 7.2.15 Impact Assessment for Long Term Exposure (annual averages including background) 7.53 Table 7.2.16 Summary of Greenhouse Emissions from Construction (Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) 7.53 Table 7.2.17 Local impact of operational traffic on Pigeon House Road 7.55 Table 7.2.18 Local impact of operational traffic on East Wall Road 7.55 Table 7.2.19 Local impact of operational traffic on North Wall Quay 7.56 Table 7.2.20 Total Shipping Emissions 2013 (Baseline) 7.57 Table 7.2.21 Total Shipping Emissions 2040 Projections 7.58 Table 8.1.1 Summary of the Benefits of the ABR Project (Traffic and Transportation) 8.4 Table 8.4.1 Directional Volume of Traffic (Average Day*) - Accesses to Dublin Port (September 2013) 8.27 Table 8.4.2 Average Daily Traffic Flows Comparison - Accesses to Dublin Port 8.28 Table 8.4.3 Two-Way Volume of Traffic (Average Day*) on External Highway Network (September 2013) 8.28 Table 8.4.4 Route Statistics - Dublin Port (Origin – Destination Survey,


IBE0807/EIS01 xii [Final]

October 2011 8.31 Table 8.7.1 Number of Cruise Liners Docking per Month (April to September 2013) 8.37 Table 8.7.2 Number of Cruise Liners Docking on days of the week 8.37 Table 8.7.3 Cruise Ship Profile - MSC Magnifica (19th August 2013) 8.39 Table 9.1 River Flows from the Liffey, Dodder and Tolka used in the coastal process models 9.6 Table 9.2 Offshore wave climate data used to simulate the inshore wave climate 9.12 Table 9.3 Power Station discharge and temperature characteristics, Dublin Harbour 9.40 Table 9.2 Peak and mean suspended sediment concentrations at various power station cooling inlets 9.51 Table 10.1 Parameters and criteria used in the Trophic Status Assessment Scheme (TSAS) for Irish marine water bodies (EPA, 2010) 10.7 Table 10.2 Compliance and water quality status of Dublin bathing waters (EPA, 2013) 10.9 Table 10.3 Impact matrix (in the absence of mitigation 10.13 Table 10.4 Residual Impacts (with mitigation) 10.18 Table 10.5 Predicted Tidal Flood Levels (Present Day) 10.21 Table 10.6a Predicted Tidal Flood Levels (Year 2100) – Ordnance Datum) 10.21 Table 10.6b Predicted Tidal Flood Levels (Year 2100) – Chart Datum) 10.22 Table 10.7 Extreme 1 in 200 year offshore storm wave climate and water levels 10.31 Table 11.1 Guideline values for sediment quality levels 11.10 Table 11.2 Chemicals or reagents that may be used in the treatment process 11.12 Table 11.3 Dredge Volumes 11.16 Table 11.4 Impact matrix (in the absence of mitigation) 11.19 Table 11.5 Residual Impacts (with mitigation) 11.23 Table 12.1 Extent of Study Area including co-ordinates within which a marine geophysical survey was conducted 12.1 Table 12.2 The deepening of the Approach Channel to Dublin Port since 1800 as a result of induced tidal scour and capital dredging 12.12 Table 12.3 Archaeological, Architectural and Industrial Heritage sites within and in proximity to the ABR Project 12.13 Table 12.4 Recorded wreck sites within and immediately adjacent to the proposed impact area 12.24 Table 12.5 Summary of the nature of anomalies detected in the side-scan sonar survey 12.33 Table 12.6 Summary of assessed archaeological and architectural heritage impacts and mitigations associated with the ABR Project 12.41 Table 12.8.1 Assessment of significance and expected type of mitigation 12.56 Table 12.8.2 Assessment of significance of structures and features within study area 12.56 Table 12.8.3 Summary of likely impacts of development on industrial archaeological features and built environment of the study area 12.61 Table 12.8.4 Residual impacts of development on industrial archaeological features and built environment of the study area 12.65 Table 13.1 Summary of Population Change in the Dublin Area (CSO, Census of Population 2002 and 2011) 13.5 Table 13.2 Age Profile in the Greater Dublin Area (CSO Census 2011) 13.6 Table 13.3 Persons aged 15 and over by Socio-Economic Group for relevant DEDs, 2011 (CSO Census 2011) 13.7 Table 13.4 Employment Status, % of Population over 15 years of Age (CSO,Census 2011) 13.8 Table 13.5 Unemployed as % of Available Labour Force (CSO, Census 2011) 13.9


IBE0807/EIS01 xiii [Final]

Table 13.6 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 1 – Preconstruction Stage and Advance Works 13.12 Table 13.7 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 2 – Alexandra Basin West Construction Works 13.12 Table 13.8 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 3 – Berth 52 Construction Works, Further Works at Alexandra Basin West, Re-location of Operations 13.12 Table 13.9 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 4 – North Wall Quay Extension & Marina wall construction works 13.13 Table 13.10 Socio Economic benefit of Stage 5 – Dredging Works 13.13 Table 14.1 Interactions 14.1


IBE0807/EIS01 xiv [Final]

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 3.1 Views of Berths 29 – 31 3.4 Plate 3.2 View of the Bulk Jetty 3.4 Plate 3.3 Views of North Wall Quay Extension 3.5 Plate 4.1 Existing Mooring Rings on North Wall Quay Extension 4.8 Plate 4.2 Concrete Mattresses being lifted into position 4.16 Plate 5.2.1 Waters of outer Dublin Bay scanned for marine mammals at 5.27 High Tide Plate 5.2.2 Shore of Dublin Bay scanned for marine mammals 5.27 Plate 8.3.1 Pedestrian Facilities - East Wall Road 8.15 Plate 8.3.2 Pedestrian Facilities - Controlled Pedestrian Crossings 8.17


IBE0807/EIS01 1-1 [Final]

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY

Dublin Port Company (DPC) produced a Masterplan in 2012 covering the period 2012 to 2040. In this Masterplan, DPC set out their proposals for major developments within the Port and Entrance Channel over the next thirty years.

DPC now wishes to advance a number of projects highlighted in the Masterplan document, mainly:

1 Works at Alexandra Basin West including construction of new quays and jetties, remediation of contamination on the bed of the basin, capital dredging to deepen the basin and to achieve the specified depths of -10m Chart Datum (CD) at the new berths.

2. Infilling of the Basin at Berths 52 & 53 and construction of a new river berth with a double tiered Ro-Ro ramp.

3. Deepening of the fairway and approach to Dublin Port to increase the ruling depth from -7.8m CD to -10.0m CD.

This is the most significant infrastructural development planned by DPC in the past 100 years and will involve a major capital investment on behalf of the Port. It reinforces the Port’s commitment to providing a top level port to the City of Dublin and Ireland as a whole. Ireland is an Island and the importance of being able to import and export goods in and out of the country is a basic requirement and vital to our livelihoods and economy as a whole.

1.2 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (STATEMENT OF NEED)

1.2.1 Background

The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project is the first major infrastructure project to be brought for planning and other consents from Dublin Port Company's Masterplan 2012 to 2040.

The Masterplan recognises the need to provide capacity in the Port to cater for 60m (million) gross tonnes of cargo by 2040 and was approved by the Board of Dublin Port Company (DPC) in February 2012. It was also subsequently endorsed by Government in its National Ports Policy 2013 in the following terms:

“The government endorses the core principles underpinning the company’s Masterplan, and the continued commercial development of Dublin Port Company is a key strategic objective of National Ports Policy”.

The locations of these three projects in relation to the engineering options identified in the Masterplan are shown in Figure 1.1. The development also includes works to deepen the Port's shipping channel and form part of the consent application process. .



The ABR Project emanates from ideas presented in the Masterplan and its design is based on an in-depth evaluation of needs (supported by detailed modelling and simulation studies) and a determination of the potential environmental impact of the proposed development during the EIA process.

The ABR Project complements recent and continuing initiatives by DPC to, in some cases, regain operational control over port lands and, more generally, to influence port operators to increase their utilisation of port lands. Figure 1.2 shows lands which have been reacquired / redeveloped by DPC in recent times (or which are in the process of being reacquired / redeveloped) for the transit storage of cargo.

These initiatives have recently included the publication by DPC of a policy document1 setting out the company’s policies regarding the use of port lands and appropriate targets for their utilisation for different types of cargo.

In identifying the engineering options in the Masterplan, DPC recognised significant levels of public concern about the expansion of the Port through further infill in Dublin Bay. The Masterplan confirmed that the Company would continue to develop the Port within its current footprint to the maximum extent possible before any major reclamation works might be considered.

The ABR Project, therefore, focuses on a combination of re-developing existing (and in some cases life-expired) infrastructure and using existing port lands at higher utilisation levels.

Beyond this, and to maximise the operational efficiency of the Port, many of the new berths proposed in the ABR Project have been designed to be multipurpose to cater for the needs of a range of ship and cargo types.

1 http://www.dublinport.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Franchise_Review_Consultation_Document_‐_3rd_February_2014.pdf



Figure 1.1 ABR Project in the context of DPC’s Masterplan 2012 to 2040

ABR Project

ABR Project



Figure 1.2 Lands re-acquired or in the process of being re-acquired by DPC



1.2.2 Why is the ABR Project Needed?

The need for the project arises for a number of reasons:

1. Dublin Port needs to make timely provision for the anticipated growth in volumes of both cargo and passengers.

2. Dublin, as the centre of national economic activity and given the regional connectivity afforded by the road and rail network, is the preferred location for the providers of shipping services to operate to and from.

3. Dublin Port needs to prepare for increases in ship sizes and the changing operational preferences of the providers of shipping services. The Port also needs to be able to cater for a large increase in the number of ship arrivals each day.

4. Dublin Port needs to re-configure port operations to best meet future capacity requirements without additional infill beyond the existing port boundaries

5. Existing infrastructure is approaching the end of its useful life and needs to be renewed / replaced.

6. Undertaking the works in Alexandra Basin West will allow DPC to take steps to address a legacy contamination issue in the basin which restricts DPC’s ability to carry out routine and essential maintenance dredging operations.

1.2.3 Future-proofing the Port

The ABR Project is, to a large extent, a re-engineering of port infrastructure built between the late Victorian period and the 1960's. The engineering works proposed in the project are on berths that are currently in use. This makes the project challenging in its implementation.

Moreover, it will be built at a time of growing volumes. Having seen the Port’s volumes decline by 9.5% between the peak of 2007 (30.9m gross tonnes) and 2012 (28.0m gross tonnes), volumes are beginning to increase again and are up by 3.0% to 28.8m tonnes in 2013.

DPC is, therefore, challenged to complete the proposed works before volumes grow to the extent that works cannot be carried out without disrupting the businesses of the Port’s customers and damaging the wider economy.

Against this background, some of the elements of the ABR Project are intended to deal with current demand and operational requirements while also future-proofing the Port by providing the capacity to further deepen berths in future years as and when required to meet market demand.

In particular, it is planned as a key part of the ABR Project that the major disruption in port activity resulting from large civil engineering works will occur on a phased basis in a way that will not result in major disruption to the movement of cargo (both import and export) through the Port.

Figure 1.3 shows the locations of the Port’s main existing berths.

Table 1.1 then summarises the changes to the working depths which the proposed development will deliver. Table 1.1 shows:



(a) The standard depth2 of existing berths (b) The proposed standard depth for new berths to be provided (c) The depths to which it is proposed to dredge the new berths as part of the

proposed development3

The extent of the proposed development is emphasised by Table 1.1 which shows that about one-third of the Port’s working berths will be rebuilt as part of the proposed development.

The operational efficiency of the Port will also be enhanced by making many of the berths suitable for different types of ships and cargo. For example, it is intended that the redeveloped North Wall Quay Extension would cater for multiple uses including:

• Car transporters • Ro-Ro vessels • General cargo vessels • Cruise ships (in season) • Visiting naval • Tall ships.

The multiple uses to which DPC puts many berths in the Port is a feature of Dublin Port and contributes to maximising the infrastructure utilisation.

2 The standard depth is the maximum depth to which a berth can be dredged without undermining it. The actual depth available at a berth will typically decline over time before maintenance dredging is necessary to bring the working depth back towards the standard depth.

3 The difference between the proposed standard depths of the new berths and the depths to which it is proposed to dredge these new berths provides the future proofing the Port requires to allow it handle deeper draughted ships in the years ahead.



Figure 1.3 Location of Dublin Port’s main existing berths



Table 1.1 A summary of the depths of Dublin Port’s main berths (current, proposed and ultimate)

Berth ID's Part of proposed development?

Location Current standard

depth

Proposed standard

depth

Proposed dredged

depth

Comment

(a) (b) (c)

18 to 22 Yes North Wall Quay Extension 6.5m 15.0m 10.0m North Wall Quay Extension will be reconfigured. It will be shortened, narrowed and deepened.

23 Yes North Wall Quay Extension 7.1m n/a n/a

24 to 25 Yes North Wall Quay Extension 7.7m 15.0m 10.0m

Jetty Yes Ore loading jetty 9.8m n/a n/a The ore loading jetty will be removed and replaced by a dedicated jetty for large Ro‐Ro ships.

29 to 30 Yes Alexandra Quay West 10.3m 15.0m 10.0m Alexandra Quay West will be lengthened by expanding Berth 29 westwards.

31 Yes Alexandra Quay West 9.8m 15.0m 10.0m

32 to 34 Yes Ocean Pier West 9.5m 15.0m 10.0m

35 Yes Ocean Pier South 9.5m 15.0m 10.0m

36 to 37 No Alexandra Basin East 10.3m n/a n/a

38 to 40 No Alexandra Quay East 12.0m n/a n/a

OB1 No Oil berth 10.4m n/a n/a




50 No DFT container terminal 9.5m n/a n/a

50A No DFT container terminal 11.0m n/a n/a

51 No Ro‐Ro berth 8.0m n/a n/a

51A No Ro‐Ro berth 8.0m n/a n/a



Berth ID's Part of proposed development?

Location Current standard

depth

Proposed standard

depth

Proposed dredged

depth

Comment

(a) (b) (c)

49A No Ro‐Ro berth 8.0m n/a n/a

49 No Ro‐Ro berth 11.0m n/a n/a

52 Yes Ro‐Ro berth 8.0m n/a n/a Both berths will be replaced by a single new long river berth (New Berth 52). This berths will have a Proposed Standard Depth of 15m and a Proposed Dredged Depth of 10.0m 53 Yes Ro‐Ro berth 5.9m n/a n/a

41 No MTL container terminal 7.4m n/a n/a

42 to 43 No MTL container terminal 11.0m n/a n/a



46 to 47 No South Bank Quay 11.0m n/a n/a

48 No ESB oil jetty 11.0m n/a n/a



1.2.4 Factors determining a port’s capacity

The capacity and effectiveness of any port depend on five attributes:

1. Adequate depth and navigability of the approach channel

2. The availability of berths with sufficient depths alongside

3. The availability of back-up land and facilities for the transit storage of cargo

4. Proximity to the port’s ultimate customers

5. Quality of the landside access.

In the case of Dublin Port, proximity and landside access are probably as favourable as they could be.

In the case of landside access, Dublin Port has the immediate connection through the Dublin Port Tunnel to the M50 and beyond to the national motorway network. In addition, Dublin Port has an active and busy connection to the national rail network with daily trains transporting large volumes of lead and zinc ore concentrates from Tara Mines and a daily container train service to Ballina.

Moreover, since the publication of the Masterplan 2012 to 2040, Dublin Port Company is on course to complete the assembly of 21.6 hectares of port land suitable for the transit storage of growing volumes of import and export cargo. The location of these lands is shown in Figure 1.2.

With three of the above five criteria satisfied, only the channel and berths remain outstanding and the proposed project seeks to address each of these.

The historic success of Dublin Port is founded on the efforts over centuries to provide the Port’s channel, berths and land in the shallow and sandy waters of Dublin Bay. These waters are characteristic of most of the east coast of Ireland where there are no great natural harbours (such as Cork, Falmouth or Sydney) but where ports developed for the most part on the estuaries of not very big rivers.

It is a story of considerable engineering ingenuity and of the continual upgrading of old infrastructure to meet new demands. Moreover, it is a continuing story where the challenges of the past remain essentially the same today and Dublin Port Company is trying to foresee the capacity that is needed for the future and to plan and build accordingly.

The project now proposed envisages the upgrading of the port’s access channel and berths to ultimately cater for a range of ships significantly larger than can currently be accommodated:

• Container ships with draughts of up to about 12.5m with capacities in excess of 3,500 TEU

• Dry bulk ships with draughts of up to 12.5m with deadweight capacities in the region of 55,000 tonnes



• Deepsea Ro-Ro ships with draughts approaching 12.0m and lengths approaching 300m

• Multipurpose (freight and passenger) Ro-Ro ferries with lengths of up to 240m • Cruise ships with lengths of up to 340m and draughts of about 9.0m

1.2.5 Dublin Port is the Preferred Location for shippers

Dublin is the largest port both within the Republic of Ireland and on the island of Ireland as a whole, particularly in the unitised cargo modes (Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo) as shown below in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Overview of Ireland’s Ports (2012)

Dublin Republic of

Ireland Northern Ireland

Island of Ireland

Population 4.6m 1.8m 6.4m

Ports 19 5 24

Port tonnes4 19.9m 47.6m 23.6m 71.2m

Ro-Ro units 718,377 833,791 748,000 1,581,791

Lo-Lo TEU 526,738 732,316 231,000 963,316

Dublin’s large market share arises due to three factors:

• The large population in the hinterland (1.8m in the Greater Dublin Area) • The port’s location at the hub of the national road and rail networks • The proximity of the Port to the west coast UK ports of Holyhead (133km),

Liverpool (250km) and Milford Haven (227 km)

These factors have led to Dublin’s share of port traffic increasing far faster than that of other ports in the Republic of Ireland in the 22 years from 1990 as shown in Figure 1.4. and in Table 1.3.

4 The tonnes shown here are net tonnes as reported by the CSO and UK’s Department for Transport



Figure 1.4 Trends in Port Tonnages, 1990 - 2012

While other ports on the East coast of Ireland5 have seen their volumes decline by -0.8% per annum on average, Dublin has grown by 5.3%.

Moreover, Dublin’s growth rate is more than twice that of other Irish ports on the south and west coasts6 which have had growth of 2.3% since 1990.

Table 1.3 Growth rates in Ports in the Republic of Ireland, 1990 - 2012

AAGR 1990 to 2012

Dublin 5.3%

Other east coast ports -0.8%

Remaining ports 2.3%

5 Greenore, Dundalk, Drogheda, Dun Laoghaire, Wicklow, Arklow, New Ross, Rosslare, Waterford

6 Cork, Youghal, Bantry, Castletownbere, Kinsale, Fenit, Shannon Foynes, Kilrush, Galway, Sligo, Killybegs



1.2.6 Cargo Volumes and Dublin Port’s Masterplan

There has been a long term trend of relentless growth in Dublin Port’s volumes. Table 1.4 summarises past trends and projected future trends over the 90 years from 1950 to 2040.

In the 30 years to 1980, the volume of goods handled in Dublin Port increased at an average rate of 3.2% per annum.

In the following 30 years to 2010, the level of growth increased to 4.6%.

Trading patterns in Dublin Port, supported by economic analysis carried out for DPC, indicates that growth will continue in the future albeit at a lower long-term rate. In particular, DPC believes that a rate of 2.5% per annum in the 30 years to 2040 is realistically achievable.

Table 1.4 Dublin Port’s long-term growth rates, 1950 – 2040

Gross tonnes7

AAGR8

1950 2,856 -

1980 7,300 3.2%

2010 28,879 4.6%

2040 60,000 2.5%

It is believed that growth will not be the same across all modes but that some modes will grow more strongly than others. In Dublin Port Company’s Masterplan it is envisaged (and supported by expert analysis) that the average annual growth of 2.5% would be spread across the different cargo modes as shown in Table 1.5.

7 These figures are ‘000 gross tonnes and are five year rolling averages. Gross tonnes includes the weight of goods, their immediate packaging and (for the unitised modes) the tare weight of containers and freight trailers. Gross weight is derived from ships manifests and differs from the weight of goods shown by the CSO in its statistics. CSO tonnages for the unitised modes do not include the tare weights of containers and freight trailers.

8 Average Annual Growth Rate



Table 1.5 Masterplan growth predictions 2010 - 2040

'000 gross tonnes (five year rolling average)

2010 2040 AAGR

Ro-Ro 16,403 41,920 3.2%

Lo-Lo 6,317 10,480 1.7%

Bulk Liquid 4,009 4,000 0.0%

Bulk Solid 2,054 3,500 1.8%

Break Bulk 96 100 0.1%

Total tonnes 28,879 60,000 2.5% Unitised 22,720 52,400 2.8%

Non-unitised 6,159 7,600 0.7%

Unitised (‘000 units) 2010 2040 AAGR

Ro-Ro 701 1,791 3.2%

Lo-Lo 377 625 1.7%

Totals 1,078 2,416 2.7%

Lo-Lo (‘000 TEU) 2010 2040 AAGR

Lo-Lo 641 1,063 1.7%

In particular, DPC believes that the port’s unitised business (Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo) will grow at a faster rate (2.8%) than its non-unitised business, primarily bulk liquid and bulk solid commodities (0.7%).

As a result of this differential, unitised cargoes will account for 87.3% of total cargo by 2040 compared to 78.7% in 2010.

Moreover, within the unitised category, DPC believes that Ro-Ro will grow faster (3.2%) than Lo-Lo (1.7%).

1.2.7 Reasonableness of DPC’s volume projections to 2040

The underlying justification for the proposed project is the requirement for DPC to cater for future growth in cargo volumes through Dublin Port. In this section, the continuing reasonableness of the Masterplan’s long-term growth assumptions is assessed by reference to a number of factors:

• Trends in the early years of the Masterplan • Impact of the recession in the early years of the Masterplan’s 30 year planning

period • Comparison with growth trends in the years since 1990 • The long-term relationship between cargo volumes and economic growth • The comparison of projected cargo volumes with population growth projections



• The impact of actual growth being different in future years to that assumed in the Masterplan

Trends in recent Years

The early years of the Masterplan’s 30 year period coincided with the collapse in the economy since 2007. The effect of this on Dublin Port’s volumes in each year since 2007 is shown below in Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5 Trends in port volumes (‘000 tonnes) 2007 t0 2013

The growth in the first three years of the Masterplan has lagged behind the 2.5% assumed average annual growth rate.

However, against a background of the port having achieved growth of 3.0% in 2013 even in advance of any significant economic recovery, DPC believes that the long-term 2.5% growth rate to 2040 remains a reasonable basis for future planning.

Based on the above recent trends shown in Figure 1.5, it is clear that the Masterplan’s assumed growth level of 2.5% has not been attained in the early years of the projection period from 2010 to 2040. Table 1.6 indicates that volumes today are in the region of 3.2m gross tonnes behind where the Masterplan had projected them to be.

Table 1.6 Masterplan projections compared to actual cargo levels 2010 to 2013 (‘000 gross tonnes, five year rolling averages)

Year Masterplan Actual Difference

2010 28,879 28,879 -

2011 29,601 28,645 - 956

2012 30,341 28,057 - 2,284

2013 31,100 27,913 - 3,187



However, given the +3.0% growth seen in 2013, DPC believes it likely that the slow start since 2010 could be quickly made up by faster growth.

In particular, an average growth rate of 3.6% would bring actual volumes into line with the Masterplan’s assumed level within a decade. This is not a high level by comparison to long run historical growth levels in the 30 years to 2010 or by comparison with the one year growth level seen in 2013.

On the other hand, if average growth ran at 2.9% over the longer period to 2040, then the target of 60.0m tonnes by 2040 would still be met.

Based on the above considerations, DPC remains convinced that the Masterplan’s growth assumptions are a reasonable and prudent basis for planning the Port’s future capacity requirements.

Comparison of Masterplan growth rates with trends since 1990

The Masterplan growth rates shown in Table 1.5 are realistically achievable by comparison with actual growth rates seen in Dublin Port over the past two decades as shown below in Table 1.7 for the period from 1990 to 2013.

By comparison with the Masterplan assumed growth rate of 2.5% between 2010 and 2040, the actual growth rate between 1990 and 2013 was much higher at 5.9%.

Table 1.7 Average annual growth rates by mode 1990 to 2013

Mode AAGR 1990 to

2013

Ro-Ro 9.2%

Lo-Lo 4.1%

Bulk Liquid 2.4%

Bulk Solid 3.4%

Break Bulk -7.5%

Overall 5.9%

Cargo volumes and economic growth

There has been a strong relationship between economic growth and Dublin Port’s volumes over the years as shown in Figure 1.6. In particular, over the long run, port volumes have increased at 1.36 times the rate of economic growth.

Between 1990 and 2012, Dublin Port’s volume increased at an average rate of 6.1%. Over the same period GDP increased at 4.5% as shown below in Figure 1.6.



Figure 1.6 Trends in Dublin Port gross tonnage and GDP9, 1990 to 2012

Having come through a five year period since 2007 during which GDP declined by an average of 1.5% per annum (and Dublin Port’s volumes by 2.0%), Dublin Port’s volumes returned to growth (3.0%) during 2013.

DPC believes that a return to economic growth will drive a corresponding increase in port volumes.

Were the long run relationship between Dublin Port’s volumes and GDP to continue, average economic growth of 1.8% would be sufficient to generate port volume increases of 2.5% per annum.

Cargo volumes and population growth

Economic growth is, in part, a function of population growth and, as well as a strong relationship with GDP, there has also been a strong correlation between population and Dublin Port’s volumes.

This is shown in Table 1.8 for the period from 1951 to 2011. The table also shows recently published CSO10 population projections11 to 2046 with port volumes extrapolated.

9 Constant GDP at 2011 values

10 http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/2013/poplabfor2016_2046.pdf

11 The CSO’s projections are based on three different assumed levels of migration and two different assumed levels of fertility. These yield six different scenarios. The scenario used in this paper is the M2F2 scenario which envisages a return to a small net inward migration by 2016 combined with a decline of fertility rates in Ireland to European levels by 2026.



If this relationship were to continue over the period of the CSO’s population projections to 2046, then we would expect to see Dublin Port’s tonnage reaching a level of 60.9m tonnes by 2041 and 66.6m tonnes by 2046.

Table 1.8 Trends in Dublin Port tonnage and population, 1951 to 2011 and extrapolated to 2046

Year Population Tonnage (5-year rolling

average)

His

toric

al

1951 3.0 m 3.2 m

1956 2.9 m 3.3 m

1961 2.8 m 3.2 m

1966 2.9 m 4.2 m

1971 3.0 m 5.5 m

1979 3.4 m 6.9 m

1981 3.4 m 7.5 m

1986 3.5 m 6.9 m

1991 3.5 m 7.3 m

1996 3.6 m 10.4 m

2002 3.9 m 20.7 m

2006 4.2 m 25.5 m

2011 4.6 m 28.7 m

Proj

ecte

d

2016 4.7 m 34.0 m

2021 4.9 m 39.6 m

2026 5.0 m 44.9 m

2031 5.2 m 49.8 m

2036 5.3 m 55.2 m

2041 5.5 m 60.9 m

2046 5.6 m 66.6 m

This projection to 2041 of 60.9m tonnes is very much in line with DPC’s Masterplan assumption of 60.0m tonnes by 2040 and supports a conclusion that Dublin Port’s volumes will grow in the years ahead beyond the current capacity limits within which Dublin Port is operating at present.

The ABR Project is being brought forward at this time to ensure that the Port is optimally configured to accommodate this growth.



What if the future projections are wrong?

The history of recent decades has shown that accurately projecting economic growth in the short term is very difficult. Accurately projecting economic growth over decades is all but impossible.

The same applies for projecting port volumes12.

Given the strong link between economic growth and Dublin Port’s volumes there is, therefore, a very real likelihood that the volume scenario DPC has developed to 2040 will either be too conservative or too optimistic. On balance, DPC believe that it is more likely that volumes will be greater than projected rather than less. However, DPC simply does not know with any degree of certainty.

DPC’s approach to dealing with this uncertainty is core within the Masterplan.

In the event that volumes grow faster than projected, DPC will seek to bring engineering options forward for planning and other consents sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, if growth is more sluggish than projected, projects will be brought forward later rather than sooner.

As regards the timing and scope of the ABR Project, DPC believes that the project is probably marginally on the late side in relation to the likely growth levels over the next five to ten years.

1.2.8 Passenger and Cruise Volumes

Beyond cargo volumes, DPC believes that Dublin Port’s cruise business will grow considerably. In particular, DPC is confident that Dublin City has the potential to attract significantly more cruise visitors.

Dublin Port’s cruise ship and passenger volumes have increased dramatically over the past decade as shown in Figure 1.7.

12 Probably the best example of this comes from the Dublin Transport Initiative report of 1995 which projected that Dublin Port’s volumes would reach 10.7m tonnes by 2011. However, by 2000, the volume through the port had already reached 21.0m gross tonnes. (See Page 14 of A Platform for Change published by The Dublin Transportation Office in November 2001).



Figure 1.7 Trends in Dublin Port’s cruise business 2004 to 2012

DPC believes that cruise passenger volumes will continue to increase substantially based on projections of potential shown below in Figure 1.8 (passenger numbers) and Figure 1.9 (number of cruise ships)13. This is because Dublin Port is the preferred location for cruise vessels to visit, not just in terms of the Port’s capacity to accommodate large vessels, but also given the proximity to the City Centre.

Figure 1.8 Projections of cruise passenger numbers to 2032

13 These projections were prepared for Dublin Port Company in June 2012 by international consultants Bermello Ajamil & Partners.



83

107

140167

020406080

100120140160180200

Crui

se C

alls

Historical Low Target High

Figure 1.9 Projections of cruise ship numbers to 2032

1.2.9 The Tidal and Depth Constraints

The primary constraint in Dublin Port is the maintained depth of the channel. This is currently -7.8m by reference to Chart Datum14.

This depth was achieved over a considerable period dating back nearly 200 years to 1818 when the construction of the North Bull Wall was commenced. The progression of the deepening of the Port’s channel is shown in Figure 1.10.

The motivation for the construction of the North Bull Wall was to build on the benefits which the Great South Wall had already delivered (in holding back the movement of sand from the South Bull) by inducing a tidal scour of the shipping channel which would cause it to deepen over time.

The wall was completed in stages up to 1824 and had the intended effect of deepening the channel and bar as a result of the induced tidal scour. Within 50 years, the depth available at low water more than doubled from 2.0m to almost 5.0m.

The next significant development occurred in 1904 when Dublin Port & Docks Board acquired a suction dredger (the Sandpiper) which, by 1909 had further deepened the bar to 6.0m.

14 Chart Datum is 0.2m above Ordinance Datum (Poolbeg). From this point onwards in this document, where figures for berth depths or channel depths are quoted they should be understood to be expressed in metres below Chart Datum.



Figure 1.10 Indicative progression of the deepening of the bar and channel in Dublin Port since 1800

With a channel depth today of -7.8m CD, the depth available across the annual phases of the tides varies between two extremes:

• The Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) expected in Dublin Port is 4.5m CD (implying a depth of water in the approach channel and fairway of 12.3m).

• The Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) is -0.1m CD giving 7.7m of water15.

Between these two extremes, the depth of water is best described by reference to the mean levels of spring tides and neap tides.

Table 1.9 indicates that the current channel depth of -7.8m CD allows Dublin Port accept ships with draughts of up to 10.2m on most days in the year but within a tidal window.

Ships with draughts of up to 7.5m can enter the port without tidal restriction on most days over the course of the year. In practice, the maximum draught for ships operating daily fixed time schedules (notably Ro-Ro ferry companies who account for 50% of Dublin Port’s volume) is 6.8m.

15 HAT and LAT are the highest and lowest tides which can be predicted to occur under average meteorological conditions and under any combination of astronomical conditions



Table 1.9 Draught handling capabilities at different channel depths

Current maintained depth: ‐7.8m CD

Mean high

water

Channel depth

Max draught*

Mean low

water

Channel depth

Max draught*

Spring tides 4.1m CD 11.9m 10.9m 0.7m CD 8.5m 7.5m

Neap tides 3.4m CD 11.2m 10.2m 1.4m CD 9.2m 8.2m

Proposed maintained depth: ‐10.0m CD

Mean high

water

Channel depth

Max draught

Mean low

water

Channel depth

Max draught

Spring tides 4.1m CD 14.1m 13.1m 0.7m CD 10.7m 9.7m

Neap tides 3.4m CD 13.4m 12.4m 1.4m CD 11.4m 10.4m

* Assumes an under keel clearance of 1.0m

The proposed increase in channel depth would increase the maximum draught of ship on most days during the year to 12.4m (with a tidal restriction)16.

It would also allow ships with draughts of up to 9.7m enter the port at any stage of the tide on most days of the year (with no tidal restriction). In practice, a channel of -10.0m CD would allow ships with draughts of up to 9.0m to enter the Port on every day of the year.

1.2.10 The average cargo load in Dublin is increasing

The average size of a ship’s cargo in Dublin Port has consistently increased over the years. Table 1.10 below shows the average cargo (discharged and loaded) per ship arrival in each cargo mode for the period from 1990 to 2013.

Table 1.10 Trends in average cargo sizes by mode, 1990 to 2013

Mode Unit of measurement 1990 2013 Change

Ro-Ro Units per ship 69 160 x 2.3

Lo-Lo TEU per ship 197 538 x 2.7

Bulk Liquid Tonnes per ship 3,759 8,443 x 2.2

Bulk Solid Tonnes per ship 3,167 5,720 x 1.8

Break Bulk Tonnes per ship 1,580 1,520 x 1.0

16 Utilisation of this maximum draught capacity would require deepening of berths in future years below the levels envisaged in this current project. However, the berths to be built as part of the ABR Project would be designed to allow this local dredging to be carried out as and when required.



In the case of Ro-Ro, the average cargo interchanged (i.e. discharged and loaded) per ship has increased by 230% in 23 years.

However, there has been an even larger increase of 270% in Lo-Lo (container) shipments.

The increasing cargo loads has been facilitated by a gradual increase in ship size.

1.2.11 The sizes of ships are increasing

The size of ships is increasing worldwide and the largest ships in specific categories have reached extraordinary sizes in recent years as shown in Table 1.11.

Table 1.11 A selection of large ship characteristics in various modes

Name Category Year Capacity Length Breadth Draught

Stena Hollandica Ro-Ro 2010 5,500 lane-metres 1,376 passengers

240m 32.0m 6.5m

Maersk McKinlay Moller

Lo-Lo 2013 194,153 DWT18,000 TEU

399m 59.0m 16.0m

Vale Korea Bulk solid 2013 400,000 DWT 362m 65.0m 23.0m

TI Oceania Bulk liquid 2003 441,585 DWT 380m 68.0m 24.5m

Oasis of the Seas Cruise liner

2009 Berths 6,360Crew 2,165

361m 47.0m 9.3m

Whereas Dublin Port might aspire to accommodate the largest Ro-Ro and cruise ships, it is inconceivable that the port would seek to handle the largest ships in other modes.

It is necessary, therefore, for Dublin Port Company to take a view on the reasonable maximum size ship which the Port should cater for in the coming decades particularly in the Lo-Lo and bulk solid modes.

1.2.12 The size of ships Dublin Port needs to cater for in the future

The trend in cargo size and ship size across all modes is inexorably upward and DPC believes that in order to maintain national competiveness and operational efficiencies Dublin Port needs to plan now for the provision of infrastructure to cater for larger ships. The need is different across the modes as discussed below.

Container ships

The maximum size of container ship which can currently be handled in Dublin is limited by a combination of constraints (including berth depths and channel depth) to give a practical maximum draught in the region of 9.0m. In practice, the maximum size of container ship which has called to the Port in recent years is in the order of 1,400 TEU.



As the size of container ships increases at the top end to 18,000 TEU, it is inevitable that there will be a cascading downwards of what were once ocean-going container ships into the short sea sector (including Ireland to Continental Europe). DPC believes that Dublin Port needs to be able to cater in the future for container ships with a nominal capacity up to about of 3,500 TEU.

Table 1.12 shows an analysis of the distribution of ship lengths and ship draughts for 2,726 ships in the range 1,000 TEU to 3,500 TEU. It is clear from this analysis that ship length will not be an issue for container ships but the project will need to provide deeper water in the approach channel if Dublin Port is going to handle container ships up to 3,500 TEU.

Table 1.12 Distribution of container ship lengths and draughts in the range 1,000 TEU to 3,500 TEU17

Length # ships Draught # ships Cumulative %

100m 11 8.0m 100 3.7%

150m 327 9.0m 460 20.5%

200m 1,620 10.0m 574 41.6%

250m 737 11.0m 545 61.6%

300m 31 12.0m 829 92.0%

12.4m 111 96.1%

13.0m 76 98.9%

14.0m 31 100.0%

2,726 2,726

The proposed increase in channel depth would allow 96.1% of ships with TEU capacities in the range 1,000 to 3,500 TEU to enter the Port.

Looking at ranges of TEU size in Table 1.13, the proposed increased channel depth would allow Dublin Port to accept 91.5% of ships in the capacity range 2,001 TEU to 3,000 TEU and 86.9% of ships in the range to 3,500 TEU.

17 Based on data extracted from Sea‐Web™ database (www.sea‐web.com)



Table 1.13 Container ship draughts in the range 1,000 TEU to 3,500 TEU

TEU range No. ships with draught ≤ 12.4m

% No. ships with draught

> 12.4m

Totals

1,000 to 2,000 1,747 99.0% 18 1,765

2,001 to 3,000 733 91.5% 68 801

3,001 to 3,500 139 86.9% 21 160

Totals 2,619 96.1% 107 2,726

These percentages relate to maximum draught. On many occasions ships will operate at less than full draught and in reality, therefore, the percentage of ships in each category which could access Dublin Port would be even higher than indicated above.

Dry bulk

Ships in the dry bulk category vary greatly in size. In Dublin Port, dry bulk shipments vary from about 3,000 tonnes up to about 25,000 tonnes.

Dublin Port has a growing trade in bulk commodities in the larger size of bulk carriers. These commodities include animal feed and increasingly biomass. Cargo parcels shipped into Dublin are limited to a maximum size in the order of 25,000 tonnes due to the channel depth constraint.

A deepening of the channel as proposed will greatly increase the number of bulk carriers which can access Dublin Port and will enable larger shipments to be received.

Deepsea Ro-Ro

There is a category of Ro-Ro ships with the capability to also take containers on deck which has started to call to Dublin Port in recent years.

This category includes deep-sea ships which typically have draughts in the range 9.6m to 11.6m and lengths in excess of 200m. Dublin Port anticipates there being increased demand from ships in this category.

Multipurpose Ro-Ro

The largest part of Dublin Port’s tonnage is Ro-Ro, mostly on multipurpose passenger / freight ferries. Such ships are neither particularly long nor deep draughted. The larger ships are now, however, at lengths (240m) which the berths in Dublin Port cannot accommodate.

A key element of the proposed project is, therefore, to provide two berths (one new berth and the other by way of an extension to Berth 49) with double-tiered loading ramps which can accommodate these longer multipurpose Ro-Ro ferries.



Cruise ships

In the case of cruise ships, on the other hand, the proposed channel depth would allow virtually all cruise ships to enter the Port at any stage of the tides as shown by the analysis of 556 cruise ships in Table 1.14. This analysis mirrors that shown previously in Table 1.12 for containers ships.

Table 1.14 Distribution of cruise ship lengths and draughts18

Length # ships Draught # ships

100m 234 8.0m 451

150m 63 9.0m 99

200m 61 10.0m 4

250m 51 11.0m 1

300m 112 12.0m 1

350m 32

400m 3

556 556

The primary limitation in Dublin Port is ship length and the maximum size of ship which can be accommodated currently is 300m. Given the potential for large growth of Dublin Port’s cruise business, the proposed project will provide for longer ships to allow this potential to be realised and the great majority of the world’s fleet of cruise ships would be able to access new berths in Dublin Port.

1.2.13 Ship number projections

Increased cargo volumes imply increased ship numbers.

However, as ships get bigger and as the average cargo per ship increases, the rate of increase in the number of ships calling to Dublin Port will be lower than the rate of increase in cargo tonnes.

DPC believes that average cargo volumes in each mode will continue to increase over the period of the Masterplan, albeit at a lower rate than seen in the period 1990 to 2013. Table 1.15 summarises the assumed levels of increase in the years to 2040.

18 Based on data extracted from Sea‐Web™ database (www.sea‐web.com)



Table 1.15 Assumed increase in average cargo volume per ship 2013 to 2040

2013 to

2040

Ro-Ro 25%

Lo-Lo 100%

Bulk Liquid 20%

Bulk Solid 50%

Break Bulk 10%

The above increases over the period 2013 to 2040 are conservatively less than those shown previously for the period 1990 to 2013. Based on these assumptions, Table 1.16 shows the number of ship arrivals for 2013 and the projected numbers for 2040 by mode.

Table 1.16 Trend in ship arrivals19 from 2013 to 2040

2013 2040 2013 2040

# ships per year # ships per day

Ro-Ro 4,928 9,696 14 27

Lo-Lo 1,101 1,066 3 3

Bulk Liquid 445 403 1 1

Bulk Solid 338 464 1 1

Break Bulk 39 50 0 0

Cruise 87 160 0 0

Other 118 200 0 1

Total 7,055 12,038 19 33

The above analysis suggests that the projected 115% increase in cargo in the years to 2040 (from 28.9m to 60.0m tonnes as shown in Table 1.5) will result in a 71% increase in ship numbers.

The largest part of Dublin Port’s business is Ro-Ro and, within this mode, 85% of the volume is on ships operating on fixed daily schedules to UK west coast ports. These ships operate with guaranteed slot times which are grouped in various windows over the course of a day. These windows amount to five hours.

19 Five year rolling averages



By 2040, the projected increase in Ro-Ro volumes will likely increase these guaranteed Ro-Ro windows to ten hours over the course of the day to accommodate 8,242 arrivals (being 85% of 9,696 Ro-Ro arrivals) over the course of a year.

This would leave 14 hours per day available for the remaining 3,797 arrivals an increasing number of which would be deep-draughted.

In these circumstances it would be difficult at times for deep draughted ships (deep even by today’s standards) to enter the port without significant delays while they wait for sufficiently high water at times when UK Ro-Ro ferry movements are not being prioritised.

Aside from the requirement to be able to handle deeper draughted ships than can be handled today, the increasing tidal window restrictions described above is an important motivator for the proposed channel deepening.

1.2.14 Dublin Port needs to configure port operations to best meet future capacity requirements without additional infill beyond the existing port

All of Dublin Port's current estate was developed on land reclaimed from the sea.

For many years this was achieved on the basis of Ministerial approved Harbour Works Orders. The last significant such order was S.I. No. 24 / 1988 which authorised works in Alexandra Basin.

Since 1988, the only application Dublin Port has made to expand the footprint of the Port was the proposed infilling of 21 hectares to the east of the port. The proposed project would have created additional berths for both Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo. Permission was ultimately refused by An Bord Pleanála in June 2010 (29N.PA0007).

Subsequent to this refusal, the focus of DPC has shifted to development of the Port's existing estate including lands over which it has been possible for the Company to regain control. This shift of focus is central to its Masterplan 2012 to 2040.

DPC's efforts to regain control over port lands have been greatly facilitated by the economic collapse since 2007 which has eliminated speculation on the redevelopment of port lands for non-port uses. As a result, DPC has land available to provide transit storage for cargo in proximity to the proposed works in this project.

1.2.15 Existing Infrastructure needs to be renewed

It is proposed to build or rebuild 2,700m of berths. Part of the need for this arises due to the age and condition of 1,200m of existing berths as follows:

• The 230m bulk jetty in Alexandra Basin West was completed in 1967 and is now 47 years old. Over its life it has been used for the handling of fertilisers (Gouldings 1967 to 1976), coal (the National Coal Company to 1984) and lead and zinc ore concentrates (Tara Mines since 1977). Repairs were to the jetty were completed in March 2007 to give it an additional ten years or so of useful life.



• Ocean Pier was constructed between 1940 and 1954 and is now 60 years old. It is in poor condition. In particular, Berths 32 to 35 on Ocean Pier are not suitable for planned future uses, particularly for container handling. These berths are part of a wider run of berths from 29 to 40 which are approaching the end of their useful lives. To date, 38 to 40 have been rebuilt and the proposed rebuilding of 29 to 35 within this project will largely complete the necessary capital refurbishment of Alexandra Quay West (29 to 31), Ocean Pier (32 to 37) and Alexandra Quay East (38 to 40).

• The construction of North Wall Quay Extension to provide river berths with depths of

6.5m and berths on the north side of the wall (in what is now Alexandra Basin) of 7.7m was commenced in 1871 by Bindon Blood Stoney. These were the deep berths of the time and followed on from the standard set by the reconstruction of Sir John Rogerson’s Quay and Great Britain Quay between 1869 and 1888. These works were the first major development works undertaken by the then newly established (in 1868) Dublin Port & Docks Board. By today’s standards and by reference to future requirements, these berth depths are insufficient.

1.2.16 The Legacy Contamination Issue

Alexandra Basin West is contaminated particularly with heavy metals as a result of past ship building and ship repair activities. One effect of this contamination is to limit DPC’s ability to carry out essential maintenance dredging operations. For example, Berths 32 to 35 were dredged in 2005 under the terms of a Waste Permit issued by Dublin City Council. At that time 40,000m3 of contaminated dredge spoil were removed and shipped to Germany for treatment and disposal at a cost to DPC of €4.0m.

The berths in Alexandra Basin West will become increasingly busy in the future and it is important (both operationally and financially) that DPC is able to include these berths within routine maintenance dredging campaigns.

1.2.17 Graving Dock no. 2

The new berth configuration proposed in Alexandra Basin West involves the extension of Berth 29 on Alexandra Quay West westwards in front of the entrance to Graving Dock #2. As a result, the port will lose the utility of this graving dock.

In common with many ports, the availability of ship repair facilities in Dublin Port was traditionally an important part of the Port’s overall offering of infrastructure and services.

However, the operation of graving docks was always financially challenging and, while deemed to be an appropriate cost for Dublin Port & Docks Board to bear in the past, Dublin Port Company’s view now is that the pressure on it to make best use of the Port’s existing estate allied to the poor commercial returns from the Port’s graving dock combine to make Graving Dock #2 redundant.

Graving Dock #2 dates from 1957 and, when built, was considered by Dublin Port & Docks Board to be of national importance in the wake of the Emergency during which time there had seen an increase in ship repair work in the Port. Absent this consideration, it is doubtful if



Graving Dock #2 would have been built against a background where there were already ongoing financial deficits in the operation of Graving Dock #1 (which had been built in 1860).

The poor financial performance of graving dock operations in Dublin Port continued and over the past 30 years:

• From 1994 to 1997, Graving Dock #2 was operated by Liffey Marine Limited (which went into liquidation).

• From 1998 to 2002 Harris Pye took over but this company also went into liquidation. • In 2003 Dublin Graving Docks Limited took over the facility and are still in situ today.

At this stage, the poor financial return from Graving Dock #2 represents an underutilisation of port assets and is sufficient reason alone for DPC now to reconfigure the graving dock and its 1.4 hectare curtilage. Commercially, DPC earns about one sixth of what would be earned by an equivalent land area elsewhere in the Port close to working berths.

In addition to this, Graving Dock #2 is suffering the same fate as the original Graving Dock #1 and as ships get bigger it is able to accommodate fewer and fewer of the ships which call to the Port. The proposed deepening of the channel and berths will exacerbate this situation.

Graving Dock #2 currently handles in the region of 25 to 30 ships in a given year and, at this stage, half of the vessels arriving into the Port could not be accommodated if the need arose for repairs at short notice.

Table 1.17 Proportion of arriving ships that could enter Graving Dock #2

# arrivals % that could enter

graving dock

2012 6,742 51.8%

2013 6,711 50.0%

The small number of ships which use graving Dock #2 can be readily accommodated in docks elsewhere in Ireland (Belfast and Cork) or on the west coast of Britain (including Liverpool and Milford Haven).

Against the above background, DPC intends to close Graving Dock #2 to allow the westward extension of Berth 29.

1.2.18 Concluding Remark

The ABR Project is justified on a number of bases ranging from the need to provide capacity for projected growth to the requirement to replace life-expired assets. The project is part of a Government-endorsed Masterplan which sets out a development strategy for the Port over the next 30 years. Given the long lead time to construct port assets and given their long economic life, the project incorporates measures to future proof the Port.



1.3 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

1.3.1 Introduction

Five generic options have been identified and are described in detail. These are

1. The “Do Nothing” Scenario 2. Use of other Locations within the Port Area. 3. Creation of New Additional Port Areas 4. Alternative East Coast Locations and other Port Locations on the South and West

Coasts. 5. Other Locations for New Ports

These are tested as appropriate against criteria relating to:

Size, Shape, Proximity to deep water, Road and rail access. Vessel requirements Landside requirements Environmental considerations, Planning considerations

The project contains two main elements the first relating to cruise vessels and the second to cargo handling with specific reference to the unitised trade. Although the berths for cruise vessels are primarily dedicated to such vessels during the cruise season they will be multi-purpose and available for other vessel types as the need arises.

1.3.2 The “Do Nothing” Scenario

Cruise Vessels

The growth in cruise liner business worldwide is notable with Dublin Port now being one of the principle ports of call for ships serving the industry in north-western Europe. 27 Cruise ships docked in Dublin Port in 1994 and c.100 visited the port in 2013. Cruise passengers are an important component of Dublin’s tourism industry and are a significant factor in maintaining the vitality of the city centre retail core and the city’s cultural attractions. Fáilte Ireland in its report entitled Cruise Tourism in Ireland Research Report 2010 set the total expenditure in Dublin at €10.2 million and an average expenditure per passenger of €100 for that year.

The Port is also close to Dublin International Airport circa 20 minutes away and offers passengers quick access to international connections.

Better facilities for cruise liners are required to provide an attractive environment and meet the needs of the cruise companies.

Although the ships come in different sizes there is a move towards larger vessels and Dublin Port must change to accommodate them in order to maintain and grow its cruise business



with all the economic advantages it brings to the City. It is not considered that it is an option to ‘do nothing’.

Unitised Trade

Port and shipping services are of major and increasing importance in Ireland because of the nature of its economy as an open trading nation without land or bridge connections to Britain and the European market. Although recent difficult economic conditions have seen a curtailing of growth in goods movements particularly in relation to imports, traffic in the form of Ro-Ro increased in aggregate by 9.4% annually between 1990 and 2012 and increased by 4.4% in the case of Lo-Lo during the same period in Dublin Port. The volume of trade in containerised traffic is anticipated to increase further and the Port’s Masterplan envisages an annual growth rate of 3.2% for Ro-Ro and 1.7% for Lo-Lo traffic up to 2040.

If Ireland is to continue to grow economically, it will depend on updating facilities for larger ships and additional or more suitable berthage. It is therefore not an option to “do nothing” if trade in the Dublin Regional market is to be served economically and efficiently. Provision must be made for additional deep water berthage and additional landside container and vehicle areas.

Dublin Port is designated as a Tier 1 Port in the Government’s National Ports Policy 2013 and this places an obligation on the Company to ensure timely provision of suitable infrastructure facilities to cater for renewed economic growth.

It is also recognised as one of the three core ports in Ireland under the TEN-T network by the European Union forming part of a trans-European transport network providing integrated international long-distance high speed routes. The network involves the provision of guidance and investment.

There is inevitably a delay of some years between the planning of a significant new Port infrastructure improvements and a date when it becomes available for use and this is recognised in National Ports Policy 2013. Long-term damage can be done to the economy if port facilities are not delivered in a timely fashion. The recent economic downturn provides a window of opportunity when provision can be made at favourable construction costs and when new construction could alleviate some of the high levels of unemployment in the construction industry. Dublin Port Company has the capacity in terms of finance and organisation to provide improved cargo handling facilities economically and speedily.

It is not an option to ‘do nothing’.

1.3.3 Other Locations within the Port Area

Cruise Vessels

Cruise Vessels to date have generally been catered for in Alexandra Basin West at available berths. Occasionally they are moored south of the River. Small cruise vessels have also been accommodated at Sir John Rogerson’s Quay.

Two studies were carried out that are of relevance.



The first dated July 2011 entitled Local Action Plan City of Dublin Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration of City-Port Heritage as a joint plan by Dublin City Council, The Dublin Docklands Development Authority and Dublin Port Company.

The second dated September 2011 entitled Dublin Port Internal Report 3 Analysis of Options for Cruise Vessels was undertaken as a preparatory paper for the Port’s Masterplan to determine the most suitable location for dedicated cruise liner berths.

Site No. 1

Site No. 1 is the chosen location. It is situated at North Wall Quay Extension. The Local Action Plan determined it as the most suitable location. Its main advantage is its proximity to the city centre and high visibility. It creates a good visual interface and allows the Port to reconnect and integrate with the City. It is proximate to the Point Luas stop so that cruise passengers and crew could access the City independently and quickly and not necessarily rely on coach/taxi travel. It would take passengers away from the main cargo handling areas and the visual disamenity that some passengers associate with cargo/industrial areas. It is close to the motorway system and coaches could reach typical tourist destinations such as the Boyne Valley and Glendalough quickly without traversing the city. Security is more easily handed in that the area is easily contained away from main cargo handling areas.

There are appropriately sized land areas for coach and taxi traffic.

It has the disadvantage of requiring the partial demolition of the North Wall Quay Extension, which is of industrial heritage value, in order to accommodate a turning circle for large vessels.

Site No. 2

This site was identified in Internal Report 3 and is located on the southern side of the river at the Lo-Lo facility occupied by Marine Terminals Ltd. It has sufficient landside areas and is close to deep water. However it is beyond reasonable walking distance to fixed public transport in the form of either a Luas or Dart stop. The current road network would involve coaches traversing city roads to reach the Motorway system. It is isolated from the City proper and would not assist the reintegration of the port with the City. Its main advantage is that it lends itself to environmental improvement. It could also form part of the regeneration of the Poolbeg Penninsula. The current Lo-Lo facility has been the subject of complaints from residents in the immediate vicinity mainly due to noise and it may appear that cruise vessels might be less objectionable however when cruise vessels dock here they are also the subject of complaint because of traffic generation and noise.

Site No. 3

This is a location in Poolbeg Harbour that was suggested in the 2008 DDDA Draft Poolbeg Planning Scheme. It was seen as a location for a cruise terminal forming the heart of a new urban area with a refurbished Pigeon House Power Station and a cluster of retail, residential and office uses. Its disadvantages are that it is located in the heart of a heavily industrialised area which contains Seveso sites in proximity. It is surrounded by uses such as generating plant, sewage treatment plant and the proposed incinerator. It is isolated from the city centre and any fixed rail public transport system. It can accommodate only one vessel at a time.



There are also operational and cost issues involved in all three locations although it can be noted that the preferred location is not the cheapest option.

Unitised Trade

The existing Dublin Port Company lands extend to some 260 hectares. Circa 130 hectares are in active Port use directly relating to shipping activity in the form of Roll On-Roll Off (Ro-Ro) and Load On-Load Off (Lo-Lo) and bulk cargo operations. Circa 76.5 hectares are in non-core related port activities located mainly to the northern and southern parts of the Port. The remainder is made up of roads and infrastructure as well as vacant land.

The port lands approached capacity for the unitised trade in 2007 and DPC has operated a policy of recovering suitable lands from leaseholders for unitised operations over the years in its efforts to meet demand. This policy has been more successful in recent years as the hope value associated with possible property development on these lands has disappeared and more realistic values have applied.

An examination of vacant and short-term let lands was undertaken as part of the Dublin Port Masterplan to assess their capacity in the future for both Lo-Lo and Ro-Ro facilities as well as bulk cargo handling. Growth in bulk cargo is not expected to be significant. These areas are set out in Figure 3 of the Masterplan and the unitised trade options are set out on Figure 5 of the Masterplan.

As can be seen there are a number of options available to meet the need for accommodating larger vessels with appropriate landside freight/transport areas, modern cranes and ramps. In selecting the project sites the key consideration was making use of existing port areas. The land use is established and acceptable in principle in planning terms and issues such as those in relation to the impact on the Natura 2000 sites are insignificant.

There are effectively two sites that make up the main areas of the project. The first of these is the existing facility based around Alexandra Basin West. The works involve deepening the berths for larger ships as well as landside changes to facilitate greater capacity for Ro-Ro traffic by filling in the more modern dry dock (graving Dock #2) but restoring the old graving dock (Graving Dock #1) which is of industrial archaeological interest. The second site involves the infilling of Berths 52 and 53 to provide greater Ro-Ro capacity whilst providing reconfigured berths with deeper dredged pockets and approach channel.

Other sites identified in the Masterplan are less advantageous and can involve land reclamation (which poses environmental problems), are not well configured for the unitised trade, are remote from motorway and rail access, distant from deep water and/or are not available within a reasonable period.

1.3.4 Creation of Additional Port Areas

Cruise Vessels

The 21 hectare Gateway Project Lands are the only obvious other lands that could be developed for cruise liners. However this project was refused approval by An Bord Pleanála because the Board was not satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA and was not



satisfied that it would not adversely affect the natural heritage of Dublin Bay. The location is remote from the City centre.

The only other lands within the Port area that could be reclaimed are those to the north in the Tolka Estuary or to the South fronting Sandymount Strand. Neither of these areas is adjacent to the navigable channel and are also remote from the City. The environmental impact would be significant in that the direct loss of habitat would be large and involve areas that are of ornithological importance. Impacts would be permanent and likely to be in contravention of the Habitats Directive. The dredging would also have a more significant effect on the Benthic Community. The visual impacts on landscape would be more significant in either scenario as the Port would move closer to the existing shoreline. There would be a loss of recreational waters on the northern side and Sandymount Beach would be impacted on the Southern side. Large vessels would encroach into areas used for recreational sailing and windsurfing.

Unitised Trade

Similar factors apply in relation to providing facilities for the unitised trade. The Gateway site is the only practical area for additional provision and the northern and southern sides of the Port are remote from deep water. In addition there are landside problems in that the adjacent lands in the north side are fragmented and are less easily acquired.

1.3.5 Alternative Locations in Existing Ports

Cruise Vessels

Cruise ships currently visit a number of Irish ports including Belfast, Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Waterford, Cork (Cobh), Galway, Killybegs, Shannon Foynes and Derry. Dublin, Belfast and Cork are the significant ports of call. Normally ships will visit two ports as part of an itinerary and Belfast and Dublin or Dublin and Cork would be typical combinations. The ports are therefore not alternatives as such for cruise vessels as Dublin is a major attraction and is the most popular destination. In effect the market dictates the destinations visited.

The only possible exception is Dun Laoghaire where Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company has recently sought to develop cruise liner traffic into its harbour. It attracted 2 visits in 2012 and 4 in 2013. To date ships entering Dun Laoghaire are constrained by quayside dimensions and the use of much of the harbour area for pleasure craft. The use of tugs is likely to be an issue in relation to larger vessels. A number of large vessels such as the Queen Mary II have moored in Dublin Bay and passengers have reached Dun Laoghaire Harbour by tender. Dun Laoghaire has an appealing visual environment as its principal attraction. However it is more remote from the main cultural and retail attractions in Dublin City Centre and the Motorway system and traffic to and from the port crosses densely developed residential areas. The Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company has applied for strategic infrastructure status for improved facilities which would enhance its suitability for larger vessels however the Dublin Port Company is confident that Dublin City Centre is a strong attraction for cruise passengers and that Dun Laoghaire will continue to play a complimentary role in the future. It can be noted that the subject planning application is for multi-purpose berths whereas the proposed Dun Laoghaire facility is understood to be for a dedicated cruise berth.



Unitised Trade

There are a number of Ports that cater for the unitised trade along the east and south coast. Dublin Port primarily serves the Dublin Region, 62% of all goods arriving in the Port remaining within 50 km of Dublin Port and 48% of all exports originate within 50km of the port. The National Ports Policy designates Dublin Port as a Tier 1 Port as one of National Significance and states that “the continued commercial development of Dublin Port Company is a key strategic objective of National Ports Policy”. The policy document recognises that port traffic has increasingly gravitated towards the larger ports in recent years to avail of capacity and economies of scale, in particular ship size. The policy document also recognises that competition between ports can be limited due to their geographical location and thus accessibility to major shipping routes and domestic market places. The natural advantages enjoyed by certain ports can be countered by adoption of a landlord-type operating model, which provides for intra-port competition. Dublin Port operates such a landlord model and robust competition exists between the shipping lines and their agents.

The Port is located at the heart of the state’s largest conurbation and economically dynamic area and its proximity to the market it serves means that it must meet the demands placed on it.

The only ports that are likely to have spare unitised capacity or increased capacity within the short to medium-term are Belfast, Waterford, Greenore and possibly Cork. They are all too distant from the Dublin Market to be economic. Waterford at one stage in the past did attract custom from the southern part of the Dublin region because of city centre traffic congestion however with the opening of the Port Tunnel that traffic is now almost wholly using Dublin Port.

Their use to serve the Dublin Market would:-

• Impact negatively on national competitiveness because of increased costs,

• Involve unsustainable traffic movements with a rise in fuel consumption and environmental emissions.

• Cause unnecessary impacts on the carrying capacity of the National Road system.

In both economic and environmental terms there are no real alternatives to the improvements planned for Dublin Port.

Appendix 1 sets out consideration in some detail of other ports as possible alternatives. In addition, there is also a summary provided of volumes through Dublin and 14 other ports in the years 2000 to 2012.

1.3.6 Locations for new ports

The only two proposals that were made for new ports on the East Coast are those at Bremore and Loughshinny. Neither proposal was designed to accommodate cruise vessels so that unitised trade is the only category to be considered.



Bremore

An application was made to An Bord Pleanála in 2007 for the proposed development of a deep water port, logistics centre and business park in Bremore in North County Dublin to be designated as Strategic Infrastructure Development (PL06F.PC0039). Precise details of the proposal are not available in the public domain particularly with regard to layout and size. However it has been stated in publicity issued by Drogheda Port Company that the project is designed to cater for up to 10 million tonnes of freight, including 350,000 TEU Lo-Lo units, 409,000 Ro-Ro units and 1 million tonnes of general and bulk cargoes. Three phases of development are proposed, the first phase of development is designed to provide circa 500 m of linear Quay for container and general cargo handling, two Ro-Ro and one high speed berths for road freight, car and foot passenger traffic. The depth alongside is designed to be in the order of -10.5m CD with a potential for a further deepening to -12.0m CD. A decision as to whether it constitutes Strategic Infrastructure has not been made.

The proposal was submitted by Bremore Ireland Port Ltd. which is made up of Castlemarket Holdings Ltd in conjunction with Drogheda Port Company. It is unclear whether the proposal is active given the length of time it is with the Board for designation.

The proposal does not feature in National Ports Policy. The Policy states that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport will examine the transfer of Drogheda Port to Local Authority control.

It is not a realistic alternative given its absence from National Ports Policy. Its scale would suggest a long lead-in time and there may be little prospect of it being funded in present economic circumstances. It also faces difficulties in relation to large-scale infrastructure provision, environmental and archaeological issues.

This site is located some 33.8km from Dublin City so that traffic accessing the Dublin market would be 10 times that of a similar vehicle servicing the Dublin area from Dublin Port.

Loughshinny

The construction of a new port at Loughshinny was mooted some thirty years ago. Nothing further of significance has been heard of the project and it is not included in any adopted national regional or local plans or policies.

It shares many of the site characteristics of Bremore.

1.3.7 Conclusions

The proposed development offers the only realistic solution within the immediate terms to the Dublin Region’s requirements for the movement of the unitised trade in and out of the region by sea.



1.4 THE PLANNING PROCESS

1.4.1 Introduction

Following consultations under Section 37B of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 as amended, An Bord Pleanála served noticed to the applicants (Dublin Port Company) under section 37B(4)(a) which stated that they had decided that the proposed development would be strategic infrastructure within the meaning of section 37A of the Act. Any application for the proposed development must therefore be directly to the Board under Section 37E of the Act. The Board will however review the suite of planning and other guidance and policy documents as applicable from the national to local level. Aside from this section of the EIS on planning, the application also includes a Planning Report which argues the case for the project as being in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

In addition to the application to An Bord Pleanála, applications will also be made to the EPA for a Waste License and a Dumping at Sea Permit. Foreshore consent under the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment Act) 2009 will also be sought from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The proposed development is set within the context of a number of key economic and planning policies or guidance documents. They include the following:

1.4.2 National

The National Spatial Strategy 2002 – 2020 (NSS)

Introduction

The Strategy provides an 18-year planning framework for Ireland and develops a hierarchy of development locations based around major centres throughout the Island.

Current Status

The Minister for the Environment, Communities and Local Government indicated in February 2013 that the Government was re-examining the Strategy and that work on a new successor strategy would take place with the aim of having the revised strategy in place by the end of the year. This raised a question mark as to the status of the existing strategy, however in reply to a Dáil question, Ms Jan O Sullivan, Minister for State at the Department, stated that “the NSS had not been abolished or removed and remains in place. However proposals will be brought to Government later this year for a roadmap to develop a successor strategy that will take account inter alia, of our significantly changed economic circumstances and to contribute to sustainable national recovery.”

The Department are currently carrying out a scoping exercise to determine the appropriate content of a successor strategy.



The National Spatial Strategy and Dublin

The NSS recognises that the efficient movement of people and goods will be essential to bring out the innate potential of places and promote balanced regional development. The ability of Greater Dublin to attract large-scale inward investment is recognised as being clearly associated with its perceived advantage being a significant urban area within international transport connections. It also recognises that Ireland’s spatial context is closely related to the wider global context. It identifies a matrix of London, Paris, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Frankfurt as key European economic region for Ireland. It states that effective connections to and from this region are essential if Ireland is to remain in a position to capitalise on its proximity in terms of contributing to and benefiting from a competitive EU economy.

It includes a Figure (Figure 1.11 in this section) that illustrates Ireland’s international spatial context in broad terms. This Map identifies the main corridor to and from Ireland as linking Dublin through the North and Midlands of England to London that in turn links through to the rest of the city matrix referred to above. The Strategy recognises that the Greater Dublin Area has experienced rapid development that has driven much of the Country’s economic success in recent years and delivered vital national benefits.

The NSS supports Dublin’s pivotal role in the national economic success and states that it is essential for balanced regional development that the performance of the Greater Dublin area be built upon and physically consolidated. It summarises the relevant spatial policies of the NSS as a more efficient Greater Dublin Area with a comment that the Greater Dublin Areas’ vital national role will be secured in terms of improved mobility, urban design quality, social mix, international and regional connections.

It states that the continued health of Dublin is critically dependant on good international access.

The National Spatial Strategy and Dublin Port

International Access (page 63 of the Strategy) states that Dublin Port is vital to the national economy and that of Dublin itself and adjoining regions. It goes on to state that “the Port faces a shortage of capacity giving rise to a need for more land to accommodate its expanding activities. Possible solutions to this in the medium to the longer term and of benefit to the Port itself and the City might lie in promoting alternative locations for some current and future Dublin Port activities, such as the transit and storage of petro-chemicals, bulk goods and cars, more Port business to and from various parts of the country to other nationally strategic Ports could be encouraged. This in some cases may require substantial investment in facilities at alternative Ports”



Figure 1.11 Irelands International Spatial context in broad terms



The NSS recognises the shortage of capacity and the need for more land to accommodate its expanding activities. The solution suggested for the medium to long term in terms of petro-chemicals, bulk cargo and cars, lies at the heart of the Port’s Masterplan and this is dealt with below. However, it does not offer any short term solution to the principal growth area of unitised trade which is an immediate requirement. Its encouragement of more Port business to and from various parts of the Country to other strategic Ports is not a sustainable solution and would unnecessarily increase Ireland’s footprint and neither is it a particularly economic solution. It would involve substantial investment in facilities at alternative Ports in a situation where those Ports do not have the financial capability of financing such facilities without recourse to state assistance. They would also be reliant on State investment for infrastructural development. This in turn affects Ireland’s competitive cost base.

The recent National Ports Policy 2013 which is considered below recognises the issues and is based in terms of today’s economic circumstances.

The need for more space for the unitised trade in the medium term can be achieved through the present proposal which involves bringing further landside areas into unitised use and reconfigured berthage.

National Development Plan 2007 – 2013

The National Development Plan and Ports Policy

The National Development Plan “Ports Sub Programme” acknowledges that the broad conclusions of a Port capacity project published in October 2006 demonstrates that the projects being proposed by the Port sector (including that of Dublin Port) have the potential to deliver adequate capacity for the Island going forward. However, the Plan notes that the Government proposes to undertake a comprehensive study of the role of Dublin Port taking account of locational considerations in the context of overall Ports policy on the Island, wider transport policy, urban development policy, the National Spatial Strategy and National Economic Policy and this review will take account of the findings of the City Council Study. Such a comprehensive Government Study was not prepared.

The National Development Plan was overtaken by the severe downturn in the economy and the Government published Infrastructural Investment Priorities 2010-2016 – A Financial Framework which stated in relation to the Ports Programme that:-

“The strategic objective of this programme is to ensure that Ireland has a modern ports infrastructure capable of meeting demand and which supports international competitiveness by enhancing sea access for people, goods and services. This programme has come to an end and the expectation is that all future investment by the Dublin Port Company will be made on a commercial basis, funded by user charges and other revenue streams developed by the companies. A small level of continued Exchequer capital investment in regional ports will be required prior to their handover to Local Authorities.”

Although it was indicated by the present Government on taking office that a new National Development Plan would be prepared to take account of current economic and social realities, to date no plan has been published.



National Ports Policy 2013

The National Ports Policy was published by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in 2013. It is designed to set out a roadmap for the Ports sector for at least the next generation, setting down clear objectives, the policies to achieve them and timelines for doing so.

The National Ports Policy document acknowledges that general policy for the Ports sector has been laissez faire since corporatisation of Ports began in 1997 and now introduces a clear categorisation of the Ports sector in Ireland with the aim of ensuring the commercial seaports make a full contribution to facilitating economic recovery and prosperity.

Ports are divided into Ports of National Significance (Tier1), Ports of National Significance (Tier 2) and Ports of Regional Significance. (See Introduction of Policy Page 20).

Three port companies are identified as operating Tier 1 Ports of National Significance - Dublin Port Company, the Port of Cork Company and the Shannon Foynes Port Company. (Para 2.3 Page 23)

The Ports Policy notes that the European Union’s revised TEN-T programme will open up possibilities for ten-T Ports to avail of funding facilities to be put in place through the Connecting Europe Facility. For inclusion in the core transport network, ports must enjoy significant volumes of freight and/or passenger traffic, have a high level of international connectivity and be connected to the core European rail and road network by 2030.

The criteria used by the European Union Commission are broadly similar to those used in identifying the Ports of National Significance in the Ports Policy. These are Ports that:-

are responsible for at least 15% - 20% of overall tonnage through Irish Ports and

have a clear potential to lead development of future port capacity in the medium and long-term, when and as required

Three Ports are proposed for inclusion in the TEN-T CORE NETWORK i.e. Dublin, Cork and Shannon Foynes.

The Policy states:-

“The continued commercial development of these three Ports of National Significance is a key objective of National Ports Policy”.

Section 2.5.1 refers specifically to Dublin Port Company as follows:-

“Dublin Port Company is the State’s largest Port Company. It handles approximately 43% of all seaborne trade in the State. The Port’s importance is even more pronounced in the higher-value unitised (LoLo and RoRo) sectors where it handles approximately 70% of all LoLo and 85% of all RoRo trade in the State.



In February 2012, Dublin Port published its Masterplan which sets out a vision of development over the next 30 years. The plan represents a comprehensive framework for the long-term development of the Port and is underpinned by three core principles:-

Maximisation of usage of existing Port lands

Reintegration of the Port with the City

Development of the Port to the highest environmental standards

It is recognised that the location of Dublin Port Company inevitably gives the Port competitive advantage over other Ports and will give rise to competition concerns. However, a continuation and strengthening of the landlord model of operation in the Port’s estate will allow for continued intra-port competition between the privately operated Port Terminals within the Port estate.

The Government endorses the core principles underpinning the Company’s Masterplan and the continued commercial development of Dublin Port Company is a key strategic objective of National Ports Policy.”

Section 4 of the Policy document considers Ports policy and the planning and development system.

It highlights the need for Port master planning and ensuring that relevant planning and development strategies are complementary and consistent. It encourages the embedding of such Masterplans into planning strategies and bringing clarity to the future Development Plans for each Port. National and Regional Guidelines are required to recognise the importance of the three categories of Ports and allow for their continued development.

The document also considers the relationship between Ports and their Cities and highlights the need for sufficient replacement capacity in situations where previous Port related lands are planned for re-development for other uses, such as commercial and residential use. It acknowledges the widespread recognition across the European Union of the benefits to be gained from the reintegration of a Port’s relationship with its City and community.

It encourages Ports and Local Authorities to collaborate on issues of mutual benefit and work together to maximise the potential afforded by their natural, as well as manmade, environment.

Section 5 of the policy document considers environmental and foreshore issues.

1.4.3 Regional

The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016

The Guidelines and Dublin Port

The Guidelines consider Dublin Port and Dublin Airport as the premier international access points not only to the Greater Dublin Region but also to the Country and accepts that the



continued development of these assets is essential in the interests of underpinning Ireland’s future in international competitiveness. It points to the provision of the Port Tunnel in alleviating some measures of the current landside problems and suggests that land access arrangements to the Port could be further improved by the completion of the orbital Motorway around Dublin and the development of a southern Port access route.

The Guidelines advise that Dublin Port must give consideration to trends in shipping and the rapid growth in the unitised cargo trade and observes that it will be essential to meet as far as is reasonable and practicable, the means for increasing size and capacity of sea-going vessels, the introduction of new shipping routes and the demand for more berthing and handling facilities. It observes that in independent Studies carried out by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, it was suggested that the capacity issue will be critical for Dublin by 2007-2008 and that existing land uses at the Port could be reviewed with a view to making more efficient use of existing lands as part of the process of considering further land requirements for Port related uses. The economic downturn and the consequent reduction in trade volumes meant that the capacity constraints were not reached as predicted. The Dublin Port Masterplan allowed a strategic approach to be adopted to the efficient use of lands and planning to meet future capacity requirements.

The Guidelines recognise the importance of the Port as effectively the most important port in the Country.

1.4.4 Local Plans

Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017

The City Development Plan is the primary local plan for Dublin City of which the Port forms part. It sets out a wide-ranging series of policies and objectives for the City and refers to the Port in a number of instances.

The Development Plan and the Port

The Plan notes the need to support the national role of Dublin Port as set out in the NSS (page 126)

It sets out the following in paragraph 4.4.1.2:-

“Dublin City Council fully supports and recognises the important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life of the City and the region and the consequent need in economic competitiveness and employment terms to facilitate Port activities which may involve Port development or relocation in the longer term. Dublin Port will have a significant role to play in the future development and growth of the City and it is considered prudent to plan the structure of this part of the City, including the proposed public transport network to fully integrate with the developing new City infrastructure and character, while having regard to the Dublin City Council Study - Dublin Bay, An integrated Economic Cultural and Social Vision for Sustainable Development (2007).

Dublin City Council recognises Dublin Port as a major source of employment in the area, as well as the need for Ferry Terminal services and linkages to the natural amenity of Dublin Bay. The Plan recognises the importance of Dublin Port to the National, Regional and City



economy and states that the City Council will work with the Port Company in maximising the competitiveness of Dublin Port in cargo and passenger number terms.

The Plan recognises the importance of Dublin Port to the National, Regional and City economy and states that the City Council will work with the Port Company in maximising the competitiveness of Dublin Port in cargo and passenger number terms.”

Zoning

The lands that form part of the development as well as those adjoining it, are largely zoned Z7 Employment Industry and the objective is “To provide for the protection and creation of industrial uses and facilitate opportunities for employment creation.”

The text accompanying the zoning objective states:-

“The majority of these lands are located in the Port area. The primary uses in these areas are those which result in a standard of amenity that would not be acceptable in other areas. They can unavoidably cause bad neighbour problems due to the generation of disamenities such as noise smells and heavy goods traffic etc. Activities include industry other than light industry; manufacturing, repairs, open storage, waste material treatment, and transport operating services.

These areas require a measure of protection from other non-compatible clean uses as this can result in conflict and limit the expansion of the primary use of the area.”

The permitted uses include port related industries and facilities, open storage depots, transport depots and warehousing.

The Eastern By-Pass

Policy S19 states that “It is the policy of Dublin City Council To support the provision of a link between north Dublin Port and the Southern Cross/South Eastern Motorway via an eastern by-bass of the city, in conjunction with and co-operation with other transport bodies, the National Road Authority and local authorities. The preferred method is by means of a bored tunnel and the preferred route is under Sandymount Strand and Booterstown Marsh. However the route and detailed design of the link road will be subject to an environmental impact Assessment and all statutory requirements, including a public consultation process, by the relevant authorities. An appropriate assessment of the proposed project for the entire route is also required in accordance with the Habitats Directive.”

There is no objective for the Eastern Bypass in the written statement

Map F that accompanies the written statement show an indicative line for the Eastern Bypass

Transport 21

Although it considers other national infrastructure projects it’s prime focus is on Dublin and for convenience it is considered under the Local Plan heading. The Transport 21 Programme announced in November 2005 sets out the ten year investment framework taking account of



major economic, social and demographic changes over the past decade, the National Spatial Strategy and the need to provide a modern transport network for the future and notes that the bulk of public transport investment will be in the Greater Dublin Area whose population would rise by a further 300,000 people by 2011. The major projects identified are:-

Completion of the Metro North Line from the City Centre to Swords via Dublin Airport

Phased development of the Metro West line

Enhancement and extension of the Luas network

Commencement of the Heuston Docklands Interconnector and the electrification of sections of the Dublin Suburban Rail network

Expansion of the capacity of the suburban rail networks through City Centre re-signalling, quadrupling of track on the Kildare line and re-opening of the Dublin to Navan Rail link.

The above projects are all essentially concerned with passenger movement and not with goods movement.

The Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan Review 2008

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority published a review of the Masterplan in 2008. This review sets out the following policies in relation to the Port. .

ED7 - Collaborate with Dublin City Council, Dublin Port, the Dublin Transportation Office, the Rail Procurement Agency and other agencies to promote the early provision of key infrastructural works.

ED33 - Facilitate in co-operation with the Port Company and Dublin City Council, the National role of Dublin Port in providing for the ease of movement of consumer goods and people to and from the Greater Dublin Area and beyond. In assessing proposals for the Port area, the Authority will have regard to the important role the Port plays in the economic life of the City and the consequent need in trade and employment terms to facilitate Port development.

ED34 - Co-operate with the Dublin Port Company and Dublin City Council to implement a programme of traffic management to reduce through traffic from the city centre and the local road network in the vicinity of the Port. The Authority supports the completion of the Eastern Bypass which would greatly facilitate this programme.

ED35 - Ensure that development of the Docklands does not compromise existing employment in the Port.

ED36 - Support initiatives that recognise the need for a co-ordinated approach to ensure and promote both leisure and international trade.

A further review might have been anticipated for 2013, however the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government announced the dissolution of the Authority planned for November 2013 but then postponed pending the disposal of Authority assets.



Latest indications are that the Authority will be dissolved in June 2014 and the Docklands Masterplan will apply until that date.

The North Lotts and Grand Canal Planning Scheme

This Planning Scheme which was prepared by Dublin City Council following the designation of the area by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government as a Strategic Development Zone was made by the Council on the 5th November 2013. Appeals were made against the Scheme to An Bord Pleanála and the Board’s decision and an oral hearing is planned to commence on the 25th February 2014. There is little reference to Dublin Port however the proposed Eastern Bypass is mentioned.

Other Studies

There are four other studies, all of which deal with issues in Dublin Bay which have a direct impact on Dublin Port. They include:-

The aforementioned “Dublin Bay - An Integrated Economic, Cultural and Social Vision for Sustainable Development”

The Dublin Port National Development Plan Study

The Special Task Force on Dublin Bay established by the Minister for the Environment, Local Government and Heritage.

The Local Action Plan- City of Dublin

“Dublin Bay – An Integrated Economic, Cultural and Social Vision for Sustainable Development”

This Study which was produced at the height of the economic boom advocates the use of Port Company lands for property development. It does not include the lands currently owned by Dublin City Council or ESB in the Port area in this recommendation and deals solely with Dublin Port land. It is predicated on the belief that the City has no other room to grow and that the Dublin Port Company owned lands are the primary growth lands available. It does not take into account planned growth initiatives in terms of public transport proposals and development associated with them for the Greater Dublin Area. It does not recognise that redundant Port lands have been (since 1987) and are in the process of development mainly within the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Area. It does not deal comprehensively with the impact that such a proposal would have on the trading economy of the Country as a whole or in particular on the Dublin Region. No alternative locations are assessed.

The authors also produced a report on its public consultation of this Plan. This recorded both views in favour of the conclusions and views against.



The Dublin Port National Development Plan Study (The Indecon Report)

This economic report was published by the Department of Transport in July 2009. Its terms of reference were to assess the role and future development of Dublin Port within the context of the National Development Plan.

It examined the costs and benefits of various scenarios including:

• The relocation of all or part of Dublin Ports existing activities to an alternative location;

• Existing port activities continuing to expand with demand and;

• Port activities continuing at current levels with growth catered for at alternative locations.

It reached eight conclusions as follows:

1. The level of port capacity requirements will be influenced by economic growth and by developments in consumer expenditure.

2. There is potential to improve the capacity utilisation of ports in Ireland and this should be pursued as a priority.

3. There is need to develop additional port capacity in Ireland by 2025-2030 and this would require the expansion of Dublin Port or the development of the proposed Bremore Port or some equivalent facility to provide capacity for the Irish economy.

4. Both Dublin Port’s proposed 21 ha development and the development of new port capacity such as the proposed Bremore Port would have positive net present values.

5. Nothing should be done at policy level to block either the proposed expansion of Dublin Port or the proposed development of Bremore at this stage.

6. The proposals for Bremore and Greenore and other Ports combined with the continuation of Dublin Port would have a higher new economic benefit than the complete closure of Dublin Port.

7. The scenario involving a potential closure of Dublin Port would have city wide sustainability benefits but these would not justify the additional cost involved.

8. Consideration must be given to the timing and costs and benefits and who would pay for the capital expenditures and the long timescale required for implementing a scenario involving the closure of Dublin Port.



The Special Task Force on Dublin Bay established by the Minister for the Environment, Local Government and Heritage

The Task Force was set up at the end of May 2008 and no information was available on their reports to the Minister.

Local Action Plan City of Dublin - Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration of City-Port Heritage as a key for Sustainable Economic, Social and Urban Development

This Plan was prepared under the auspices of the URPACTII Programme funded by the European Regional Development Fund. The overall goal of the Plan is to develop a strategy for the development of cruise traffic and the urban regeneration of this Port area that would articulate a new relationship between the City and Port.

The Plan was developed in conjunction with Dublin Port Company, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and a Local Support Group made up of tourism, business and marine interests.

The Plan researches and analyses:-

Cruise traffic and its existing and potential contribution to the City

The physical nature of the Port, the Quays and the relationship between Port and City, highlighting the lack of connectivity.

It identifies the Liffey side of Alexandra Basin as the preferred location for cruise ships and possible future use of Terminal 3 as a Terminal for cruise vessels. It also identifies a need to physically improve the general area in terms of public access, new surface finishes, landscaping and amenities.

The Plan sets out three main Specific Objectives with a sub-set of actions as follows:

Specific Objective 1

To transform, regenerate and adapt the physical and environmental components of the Port.

Action 1.1: To provide a cruise Terminal and improve connectivity between the Port and the City

Action 1.2: To promote a sense of public space within the Port area


To maximise the potential of cruise traffic and Port heritage as economic and social generator.

Action 2.1: To promote the provision of a Visitor Centre in the Docklands area



Action 2.2: To promote social infrastructure and address the effects of community services in the City.


To Plan and manage the cruise development within a global city project.

Dublin Port Master Plan 2012-2040

Although, it is not a statutory plan, Dublin Port’s Masterplan has been explicitly endorsed in the National Ports Policy, 2013.

The Masterplan presents a vision for future operations at the Port and critically examines how the existing land use at Dublin Port can be optimised for merchandise trade purposes, passenger and cruise vessels. It is designed to:-

Plan for future sustainable growth and changes in facilitated seaborne trade in goods and passenger movements to and from Ireland and the Dublin Region in particular

Provide an overall context for future investment decisions

Reflect and provide for current National and Regional Guidelines and initiatives

Ensure there is harmony and synergy between the plans for the Port and those for Dublin City, the Dublin Docklands Area and neighbouring counties within the Dublin Region.

Give some certainty to customers about how the Port will develop in the future to meet those requirements

Better integrate the Port with the City and its people

The Plan would facilitate the Port in handling up to 60 million tonnes of goods by 2040.

The Masterplan was the subject of extensive consultation with the public and interested parties. It was also subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment. Although not a statutory plan, it is framed within the context of EU, national, regional and local Development Plan policies and follows best practice in terms of planning for Ports. It can be noted that the National Port Policy document recommends that the major Ports in the country carry out such a plan.

Strategic Objectives area set out under a number of headings as follows:-

Port Functions

Ensure the safe operation and sustainable development of the Port and its approach waters and provide appropriate infrastructure, facilities, services, accommodation for ships, goods and passengers to meet future demand.



Optimise the use of lands on the Port Estate through rationalising the distribution and location of specific areas of activity such as Ro-Ro, Lo-Lo, Ferry Services, Cruise ships, Liquid/Bulk Goods and storage areas with necessary reconfigurations of service facilities as required.

Recover lands that are not being used for critical Port activity and re-use for such activity

Develop quaysides adjacent to deep water to their maximum in accordance with environmental/licensing requirements

Use new and developing technologies to increase throughput to its maximum

Identify configurations for extending berthage and storage that mitigate impact on adjacent environmentally sensitive/designated areas.

Provide adequate water depth to accommodate larger/deeper draught vessels in accordance with environmental/licensing requirements.

Investment and Growth

Utilise the Masterplan as a framework for investment and growth based on the Port’s projected demand forecasts

Maximise throughput by means of structured charges for land usage and cargo usage

Integrating with the City

Achieve close integration with the City and people of Dublin through a commitment to respect soft values associated with the location, operation and impact of the Port

Promote movement linkages in the form of pedestrian and cycle routes

Enhance the general aesthetics/visual impact of the Port around the interface with the City.

Movement and Access

Provide for a public transport route to serve passengers and those working within the Port to improve the modal transport split

Develop a transport plan for the Port Estate in conjunction with the National Transport Authority and Dublin City Council

Promote non-motorised sustainable transport modes, including cycling and walking

Maximise the use of rail transport for goods to and from the Port

Promote the provision of future transport infrastructure that facilitates shipping and related Port activities

Enhance existing infrastructure to provide dedicated access/exit routes to Port facilities.



Environment and Heritage

Ensure a development framework that is compatible with adjoining areas with particular regard for areas in Dublin Bay which are designated under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. This development framework will also take account of the recommendations and mitigation measures arising from the SEA, AA and other relevant plans for the protection of natural resources, including the protection of water resources, designated and non-designated sites, aquatic ecology and protection against flood risk.

Integrate new development with the built and natural landscapes of the surrounding areas

Promote sustainable design in the natural and built environment

Secure the preservation of all Protected Structures within the Port Estate

To promote in the development of future Port facilities the principle of universal design to make environments inherently accessible for those with and without disabilities.

A promotion of excellence and focus on good quality in design, where possible.

Recreation and Amenity

Promote Dublin Port for recreation and amenity by highlighting walks and cycle routes offering facilities for bird watching and viewing wildlife, as well as views of the Bay and wider environment, as well as the activity within the Port.

Develop landmark attractions such as a Port Heritage Centre

Maximise public access to the waterfront and enhance the public realm by landscaping and by high cleanliness standards.

Security

Ensure that key areas of the Port retain good security provision in accordance with ISPS requirements.

Future Review

Identify a strategy for future review of the Masterplan against underlying assumptions and performance of the Port business and also assess how the Masterplan is achieving its objectives and targets.

The Masterplan sets out a number of options for future development based on forecasts of economic projections, trade volumes and capacity projections for the various cargo modes. These options are mapped, as well as described.

The subject project represents the first phase of the Masterplan. The essential characteristics of the project are the provision of cargo and cruise vessel berthage at the interface of the Port with the City at Alexandra Basin with the provision of compensatory open container space at berths further to the east, together with berth and channel deepening. It also includes for an enhanced boundary treatment and easy access to the Luas Stop at the Point



Depot. The proposed development achieves a number of the objectives set out above relating to Port Activity, Integration with the City, Movement and Access and Recreational and Amenity. It will greatly improve the cruise passengers experience and bring the visual glamour associated with cruise vessels closer to the City.

The project is also designed to meet the other objectives set out in relation to the environment and heritage by minimising any impacts on the environment, including natural heritage and mitigating any negative impacts.

1.4.5 Conclusion and Compliance with Planning Policy

As stated in the introduction to this section of the EIS, the Planning Report included in the suite of documents accompanying the application sets out the arguments for the proposal in planning terms.

However it can be stated within the EIS that the proposal complies with all the above mentioned documents.

It complies with:

Government policy with regards to Ports

The Z 7 Employment and Industry zoning objective for the area in the Dublin City Development Plan

The ambition for integration with the city in the Masterplan and Local Action Plan (with the location of cruise berths at North Wall Quay Extension as well as the interpretive elements which will be available to the public)

It meets

The medium term capacity requirements recognised in the NSS, the Regional Planning Guidelines for the greater Dublin Area and the Port Company’s own Masterplan.

A number of the plans referred to above are effectively out of date and have not been revised and some were influenced by the economic boom conditions that prevailed at the date of their publication. Some were influenced by proposals by third parties to build an entirely new port in North County Dublin and by the proposals set out for property development within the Port in the Dublin Bay Study commissioned by Dublin City Council.

There have been developments in relation to the Eastern Bypass as a result of meetings held between Dublin City Council, the National Roads Authority and Dublin Port Company that are covered in detail in the Planning Report accompanying the planning application. It can be noted that location and reservation is now agreed with the principal parties involved. It can be noted that the ABR Development does not impede the delivery of the Eastern Bypass.

None of the elements of industrial archaeological interest are included in the Record of Protected Structures so the issue of compliance in that respect does not arise however the conservation of heritage items within the port is a significant element of the application and



can be seen as being in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The major advance in terms of clarity in relation to planning ports and Dublin Port in particular is National Ports Policy 2013. For the first time there is an unambiguous recognition of the importance of the Port and its need to cater for economic growth in the Dublin Region and Ireland as a whole as well as its role in the wider European context. There is no mention of relocating or abandoning the Port to property development.

It can be expected that revised planning documents at regional and local level will reflect the Port’s Policy to remove any ambiguities in relation to the Port’s future. The endorsement of the Port Company’s Masterplan within the Policy is a strong indication of Government support. The current proposal is the first component. of the Masterplan.



1.5 SCOPE AND FORMAT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.5.1 Scope of the EIS

Prior to work commencing on the EIS, it is important that the scope of works is effectively defined. The scoping exercise confirms the nature of the development, the extent of the environmental assessment, the key issues and the level to which these issues need to be addressed.

A scoping exercise was carried out at the beginning of this project to determine the issues that needed to be addressed in the EIS. The scoping exercise involved the following main elements:

Preliminary consultation with the principal statutory and non-statutory consultees;

Preliminary site visits to assess the likely environmental impacts at first hand;

A desktop study where information about the site from a number of sources was examined.

Once the key issues were identified, baseline studies/surveys were carried out. The studies enable the prediction of the likely environmental impacts arising from the proposed development. These impacts are evaluated in terms of their significance, nature and magnitude.

The main aim of the environmental assessment, as part of the design process, is to ensure that any potentially damaging effects are avoided or minimised and that the beneficial aspects of the project are enhanced. The best means of impact mitigation is to avoid it in the planning and design process. Reduction involves lessening the degree of an impact that cannot be completely avoided. Reducing the impact acknowledges that some degree of adverse impact will arise, but provides the means by which the conditions can be improved or compensated for.

Although the scoping exercise is carried out at the beginning of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the scoping itself continues throughout the project and in particular during the main consultation phase as outlined in Chapter 2 of this EIS.

A summary of the potential impacts identified during the scoping study are presented in Table 1.18.



Table 1.18 Scoping Matrix

Environmental Topic (Ref: EIA regulations)

Potential Impacts

Construction Phase Operational Phase

Degree of Potential Impact

Description Degree of Potential Impact

Description

FLORA AND FAUNA

Birds -

• Disturbance and removal of feeding and roosting areas.

• Noise impact of construction activities

- to 0 • Possible disturbance from

increase port activities

Marine Mammals - • Disturbance during construction

activities particularly with regards to piling and dredging activities.

0 • No further impacts envisaged.

Benthic Ecology -

• Loss of benthic habitats and fauna during dredging operations.

• Sedimentation from dredging activities.

0 • Re-colonisation of habitats and re-

establishment of populations envisaged to take place quickly.

Terrestrial Ecology - to 0 • Disturbance, particularly if bats are present

0 • No impact envisaged.



FISHERIES

Fisheries -

• Potential impact during dredging operations from increase in turbidity of water and loss of benthic feeding material.

• Potential impact on migratory fish depending on time of year dredging is carried out.

0

• No impact envisaged during operational phase as benthic habitats and fish population expected to recover quickly.

Aquaculture 0 • There are no aquaculture sites within Dublin Bay 0 • No impacts envisaged.

AIR AND CLIMATE

Noise - • Impact of noise during construction operations - to 0

• Potential increase in noise due to port operations. Mitigation measures may be required

Vibration - • Potential for vibration during piling and dredging operations 0 • No impact envisaged.

Air, Climate and Odour - to 0 • Potential for increase in dust during construction activities

• Possibility for production of offensive odour when dredging sediment with high organic content.

- to 0 • Potential increase in greenhouse gasses due to port operations

MATERIAL ASSETS

Roads and Traffic - to 0 • Potential increase of HGV movements during construction 0 to +

• Closure of exits onto East Wall Road has potential to have positive impact.



Utilities including water supply, sewerage, electricity and gas networks

- to 0 • Potential for short-term disruption to utilities during construction work. 0 • No impact envisaged.

CULTURAL HERITAGE (INCLUDING ARCHAEOLOGY)

Cultural heritage - to 0

• Loss of infrastructure of architectural heritage importance during construction activities.

• Recovery of items of cultural heritage significance during construction activities.

0 to +

• Opening up of Graving Dock #1 • Presentation of items of cultural

heritage significance as part of ABR project.

Archaeology - to 0

• Potential to uncover previously unrecorded archaeological material during dredging and construction activities.

0 • No further impact envisaged.

HUMAN BEINGS

Human beings (Socio-economic & tourism)

+

• Potential increase in revenue in local businesses from spends during construction phase.

• Potential for increase in local

employment as a result of the construction phase.

+ -

• Economic benefits brought about from the ABR scheme.

• Loss of ship repair business at

Graving Dock #2

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

Visual Impact - • Temporary impact of plant and

machinery during construction phase.

- to 0 • Potential visual impact of increase

in operations at the port.



GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Contaminated Sediment -

• Removal of contaminated sediments from Alexandra Basin and treatment and encapsulation within Berths 52/53.

• Potential for loss of sediments to marine environment during dredging operations


Aquifers - • Potential for impact during construction activities 0 • No impact envisaged

WATER

Water quality & Flood Risk -

• Potential for increase in suspended solids and turbidity levels during dredging operations.


COASTAL PROCESSES

Coastal processes - to 0

• Potential change to coastal processes within Dublin Bay as a result of the capital dredging scheme operations.

0 • No further impact envisaged.



1.5.2 Format of the EIS

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has produced guidelines on the production of an EIS in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, and these guidelines have been followed in the production of this report. The EIS has been structure in what the EPA term a Grouped Format Structure, which examines each topic as a separate section referring to the existing environment, the proposed development, impacts and mitigation measures.

The EIS is divided into four parts as below, and is shown in Figure 1.12

Part I: Provides the background information on the project, including the need for the project, the alternatives considered and the policy background.

Part II: Describes the project, from site development through to site operations.

Part III: Describes the existing environment, the predicted impact of the proposed operation, and submits mitigation measures to lessen the degree of the impacts.

Part IV: Provides a summary of impacts and mitigation measures.



Figure 1.12 Format of the Environmental Impact Statement

PART I – Background Information

This provides existing information and characteristics of the development, alternatives considered and the policy

background.

PART II – Project Description

This describes the project from site development through to site

operation.

PART III – Environment, Impacts and Measures

Describes the existing environment, the predicted impact of the proposed harbour development and

puts forward mitigation measures to lessen the degree of impacts.

PART IV – Mitigation Measures

Provides a summary of impacts and mitigation measures, including cumulative effects.



2. CONSULTATION PROCESS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project is the first development proposal from the Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012 to 2040 and reflects the extensive consultation processes undertaken in the preparation of the Masterplan and more directly in the context of this specific proposal. The process of consultation has enabled Dublin Port Company (DPC) to solicit opinions on general development options for the Port and facilitated differing perspectives to be taken into account in the initial stages of the development proposal. The consultation processes have helped to shape the proposal now being presented to An Bord Pleanála.

2.2 CONSULTATION AND THE MASTERPLAN

In January 2011, DPC commenced a 14 month long consultation process for the Masterplan. The process was aimed at soliciting views from a wide circle of stakeholders whose perspectives on the operations and future of the port were regarded as important.

The consultation process involved:

Extensive face to face briefings with key stakeholders prior to the launch of an Issues Paper.

The publication of a detailed Issues Paper in April 2011 outlining the matters that were being taken into consideration in the context of the Masterplan and the initiation of a formal consultation process to secure submissions on the Masterplan.

A comprehensive media information campaign surrounding the Masterplan designed to solicit interest and participation in the masterplanning process.

Public information and notices including advertisements, door to door leaflet drops, and an information briefing published for local residents and stakeholders. The briefing was circulated to 60,000 households adjoining the Port area.

A targeted outreach programme to key stakeholders.

A significant digital media initiative with a dedicated micro website and a You Tube video detailing the background to the Masterplan.

Initiation of a distinct statutory stakeholder consultation process around the preparation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany and inform the Masterplan.

A series of events including

- A seminar on the soft values of the port.

- Local community briefings in Clontarf, East Wall and Ringsend.

- A conference for commercial, industry and public affairs stakeholders.

- An event for customers of Dublin Port Company.



- Direct briefings with a selection of community and environmental groups.

The publication of a draft Masterplan in November 2011 for further consultation which provided a clear view as to how Dublin Port might be developed over the long-term. The draft Masterplan reflected the many observations and suggestions received from stakeholders in response to the Issues Paper.

The publication of a Masterplan in February 2012 which took account of all submissions and observations made during the consultation processes in the preceding 12 months.

The key documents produced during this period of consultation are shown in Figure 2.1.

The consultation process for the Masterplan created a significant level of interest and active participation.

The community briefings attracted over 100 people from Clontarf, East Wall and Ringsend. The conference was attended by 140 key stakeholders, while additional briefings were held with 12 organisations and groups.

The publication of the Issues Paper secured 222 formal responses from a range of participants including statutory bodies, commercial entities and community groups. This was a very encouraging response rate for a consultation process of this nature and, in particular, the level of understanding of the matters outlined in the Issues Paper was extremely high.

Having examined and considered the detailed responses, DPC published a draft Masterplan in November 2011 which reflected many of the excellent and constructive suggestions from the Issues Paper consultation.

The draft Masterplan consultation process conducted over November and December 2011 secured 34 formal responses from a range of participants categorised as follows:

Submissions by Individuals & Community Groups – 19 respondents

Submissions by Public Representatives – 3 respondents

Submissions by governmental/statutory bodies – 9 respondents

Submissions by Commercial entities – 3 respondents

The object of the consultation process was to create awareness of Dublin Port, to identify the issues that DPC was seeking to address in the Masterplan and, most importantly, to encourage participation and submissions on the Issues Paper and draft Masterplan to contribute to the final Masterplan. A key aspect to the consultation process was to identify some of the key parameters which should inform individual projects which should subsequently emerge from the Masterplan.



Figure 2.1 Masterplan Documentation



The ABR Project directly reflects and addresses many of the key observations made during the consultation process for the Masterplan such as:

Recognition that DPC should fully exhaust all viable alternatives to meeting the operating requirements of the Port before engaging in additional reclamation works.

An acceptance that Dublin Port is a key part of national strategic infrastructure and plays a key role in the life of the City and the Greater Dublin area.

A desire for greater integration between the Dublin City and Dublin Port.

A need for any subsequent development and increased port activity to take account of the marine ecology and the important natural resource presented by Dublin Bay.

The proposed new location for cruise ship disembarkation was viewed very favourably. There was strong agreement that the suggested location was situated in a more attractive setting for passengers arriving into the city. This forms a core part of the current development proposal through the creation of multi use berths adjacent to the North Wall Quay Extension which can accommodate cruise vessels in berths as close to the City as it is practically possible to get.

The need for any new development proposals to be accompanied by a significant community gain, in particular with new environmental enhancements and boundary softening. The potential offered for additional cultural gain was also recognised given the historical fabric of some port infrastructure.

Concerns about how future developments might impact on the areas surrounding the port lands in terms of transport, noise and amenity.

2.3 CONSULTATION AND THE ABR PROJECT

Building on the extensive consultation carried out during the process to develop the Masterplan, DPC and their consultants, RPS, carried out further extensive consultation on the ABR Project in the course of developing the current proposal.

2.3.1 Consultation with Statutory and Relevant Bodies

During the course of the Consultation, discussions took place with the following statutory and relevant bodies:

An Bord Pleánala

Dublin City Council

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht



Department of Environment, Community and Local Government

National Roads Authority

National Transport Authority

Department of Transport

Failte Ireland

Environmental Protection Agency

Marine Institute

Consultation with the statutory bodies continued throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment process and, in particular, where potential issues were raised during the impact assessment phase.

Letters were also sent to the relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees listed in Table 2.1, informing them of the proposed development and inviting their comments on the proposal.

Table 2.1 Statutory and Non-Statutory Bodies consulted as part of the EIA Process

Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources


Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport

Development Applications Unit, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

The Arts Council An Taisce

Birdwatch Ireland Bord Gais Eireann Bord Iascaigh Mhara

Dublin Regional Authority Inland Fisheries Ireland, Swords

Inland Fisheries Ireland, Blackrock

Coillte Commissioners of Irish Lights Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Health and Safety Authority Failte Ireland Office of Public Works

National Roads Authority Department of Education and Skills

Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Department of Health Electricity Supply Board



Eircom Health Service Executive Geological Survey of Ireland

Heritage Council Marine Institute Irish Rail

Irish Whale and Dolphin Group

Waterways Ireland Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland

RNLI Dublin City Council National Transport Authority

A summary of the responses received from the consultees is set out below in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Summary of written responses from Consultees

Consultee Date Sent Date Reply

Reply Format Comments

Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

24/4/2013

Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport

24/4/2013


24/4/2013

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

24/4/2013 23/5/2013 X The Scoping response from this Department is co-ordinated through their Development Applications Unit.

An Comhairle Ealaion 24/4/2013

An Taisce 24/4/2013 29/4/2013 X Remarked that “ecological evaluation of proposal is required”

An Taisce agree with strategy of “securing enhanced capacity of existing berthage areas, before any further infill”





Birdwatch Ireland 24/4/2013 03/07/2013 X Potential species of conservation concern on the site are Black Guillemots. It is important that nesting sites are provided.

Terns also need to be considered in the EIS

Bord Gáis Eireann 24/4/2013 29/4/2013 X Bord Gais provided map showing their infrastructure in vicinity of the proposed works in Dublin Port.

A “Code of Practice 2011” booklet and “Safety Advice Booklet” were provided.

Bord Iascaigh Mhara 24/4/2013

Inland Fisheries Ireland (Blackrock)

24/4/2013

Dublin Regional Authority 24/4/2013 17/5/2013 X Advice is provided on legislation and guidelines which should be consulted when preparing the EIA and AA.

Inland Fisheries Ireland HQ

24/4/2013

Coillte 24/4/2013

Commissioners of Irish Lights

24/4/2013

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

24/4/2013 30/4/2013 X The letter will be brought to Minister Coveney’s attention at next practical juncture.

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

24/4/2013 23/5/2013 X The Climate Change Division asked for an extension to the deadline for replies as they need more time to formulate their response to our scoping request.





Health and Safety Authority

24/4/2013

Failte Ireland 24/4/2013 29/4/2013 X Failte Ireland provided guidelines for treatment of tourism within the EIS

Office of Public Works 24/4/2013

National Roads Authority 24/4/2013 16/5/2013 X General information provided on what needs to be addressed in EIA in terms of road impacts.

NRA’s Feasibility Report and Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern Bypass needed to be referred to.

Department of Education and Skills

24/4/2013

Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

24/4/2013 26/4/2013 X Letter to acknowledge our scoping request and the matter will be brought to Minister Bruton’s attention at the earliest opportunity.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

24/4/2013

Department of Health 24/4/2013

Development Applications Unit, DAHG

Archaeological Unit

24/4/2013 14/5/2013 X Response provided on the requirements of the Underwater Archaeological Unit of the DAHG. Of note is the requirement to carry out side scan sonar, magnetometer and sub-bottom profiling. All to be carried out at a narrow line spacing of 20m.







24/4/2013 23/5/2013 x An ecological survey of the proposed development site must be carried out. The EIS should include results of all surveys.

The impact of the development on flora, fauna and habitats must be assessed and in particular regard paid to Natura 2000 sites.

This project should be subject to Appropriate Assessment screening and if necessary an Appropriate Assessment.



24/4/2013 23/5/2013 X Recommendations provided to consult a wide range of Dept publications on protection of habitats, flora and fauna.

Electricity Supply Board 24/4/2013 17/5/2013 X Detailed response provided by ESB where they highlight their infrastructure in the Port area. In particular the location of 220kV cables were emphasised and a map was provided showing locations of same.

ESB is fully supportive of enhancement of port facilities.

Eircom 24/4/2013

Health Service Executive 24/4/2013

Geological Survey of Ireland

24/4/2013





Heritage Council 24/4/2013

Irish Rail 24/4/2013

Marine Institute 24/4/2013

Irish Whale and Dolphin Group

24/4/2013 20/5/2013 X The IWDG point out that Dublin Bay is an important area for harbour porpoise.

The impact on harbour porpoises of disposal at sea operations must be carefully addressed in the EIA and Appropriate Assessment

Waterways Ireland 24/4/2013

Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland

24/4/2013

RNLI 24/4/2013

Dublin City Council 24/4/2013 16/5/2013 X The scoping request has been referred to the Deputy City planner for his attention.

Also the scoping request has been forwarded to the City parks superintendent and executive manager of engineering.

National Transport Authority

24/4/2013 28/05/2013 X Any traffic increases brought about by the proposed development must be considered in the impact assessment.

The impact of the scheme on the proposed Eastern Bypass Route must be considered by the EIS.



2.3.2 Public Consultation

An extensive programme of public consultation concerning the ABR project was undertaken between September and November 2013 to seek the views of the wider public on the proposed ABR Project and the Community Gain proposal to be advanced as part of the project.

The Community Gain proposal, involves the transfer of 10.5 hectares of land owned by DPC on Bull Island to Dublin City Council (DCC)and the allocation of €1.2m by DPC to DCC towards the cost of a study and a new visitor centre for Bull Island.

The consultation process involved:

The publication of a community newsletter (Appendix 2) on the ABR Project and the community gain element, which was circulated to over 40,000 homes in areas adjacent to the Port.

Meetings with local community groups in areas directly adjacent to the Port.

Briefings with local public representatives on the ABR Project and the Community Gain proposal – these meetings included one to one briefings with individual public representatives and also with Local Area Committees of Dublin City Council.

The development of a dedicated website to explain the proposed initiative and facilitate feedback. The website link is as follows www.dublinport.ie/masterplan/dublinportabr

A dedicated community consultation process to seek views on both the ABR Project and the Community Gain proposal – the consultation process sought respondents’ views in general but also invited responses around specific questions about the project and the Community Gain proposal.

The publication of public notices (Appendix 2) in local newspapers.

An extensive media campaign to publicise the project which secured wide coverage in all national and local print, electronic and online media outlets.

2.3.3 Issues raised during the public consultation exercise

The consultation process on ABR Project and the Community Gain proposal secured written responses from 34 parties. A number of specific comments/issues were raised during the consultation process which have been addressed in this EIA, where relevant, and the application for development being brought to An Bord Pleánala, including:

Broad based support for the community gain proposal outlined by DPC as part of the ABR Project.

The need for timely development of facilities at Dublin Port to accommodate trade levels, trends in shipping and economic development.

The maximisation of use of current land in Dublin Port as an alternative to additional encroachment into Dublin Bay.



Support for new berthing facilities for cruise vessels given the increase in the level of cruise traffic and the economic contribution presented by cruise liners.

Recognition of the need for closer integration between the Port and the City.

Recognition of the potential for cultural heritage gain presented by the ABR Project – specifically around the restoration of Graving Dock #1 with modernity and cultural heritage co-existing.

Need for better public transportation links between the Port and the City.

Boundary softening between the Port and surrounding areas would be a significant benefit from the development.

A desire to comment on the specific development proposals once presented to An Bord Pleánala and to participate more fully in the development assessment process.

Some concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the displacement of commercial activity currently carried out in Dublin Port.

A desire that any proposals from Dublin City Council for Bull Island following on from the implementation of the community gain proposal should be subject to appropriate consultation, best practice and the relevant planning consent and environmental assessment processes.

2.3.4 Further Consultation

In addition to the significant level of consultation undertaken in the development of the Masterplan and as part of the ABR Project to date, it is planned to undertake a major public information exercise to inform all stakeholders of the proposed development when the planning application is lodged with An Bord Pleánala. The purpose of this information exercise will be to inform people of the development proposals, the impacts arising and to ensure that they are aware of the opportunities available to them to participate in the development assessment process. The public information will be imparted on an objective basis to encourage the maximum possible public participation in the planning assessment process and will include:

Submission of the application and accompanying documentation to the relevant statutory stakeholders

The planning application and related materials being posted to a dedicated website independent of the main DPC website.

The planning application and associated documentation being made available at the offices of DPC and available in electronic format for members of the public on request.

A public information campaign including:

- Public notices

- Advertisements

- Public consultation sessions in local community centres



- A newsletter circulated to local residents

- A mail-shot to public representatives and local community/residents/social and environmental groups

A media information campaign including national and local media through multiple formats.

2.4 CONCLUSION

The development proposals advanced in the ABR Project reflect the significant levels of consultation that have taken place since 2011 on the future of Dublin Port. The specific issues raised during the consultation process on the ABR Project have been addressed and, where possible, mitigated to reduce the environmental impact of the development.

The various submissions and comments made in relation to the proposed development have been fully considered by the consultants in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement and by the applicants in the design of the scheme. Every effort has been made to address all concerns raised and, where possible, mitigation measures have been proposed to minimise the environmental impact of the proposed development.



3. SITE DESCRIPTION

This Chapter of the EIS describes the location of the site and its existing use.

3.1 SITE LOCATION AND SITE CONTEXT

The proposed development is located within Dublin Port Estate, Dublin, the largest Port in Ireland located on the East Coast of Ireland and within the navigation channel and fairway from Dublin Port into Dublin Bay.

Dublin Port Estate comprises an area of circa 260 hectare spanning both the North and South banks of the River Liffey (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Location of Dublin Port

The proposed Alexander Basin Redevelopment Project comprises works to be undertaken in three areas as follows:

Alexandra Basin West

Berths 52 / 53

The navigation channel and fairway from Dublin Port into Dublin Bay



The locations of Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52 / 53 in Dublin Port are shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Location of Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52 / 53

A capital dredging scheme is an integral part of the development. Its purpose is to deepen Alexander Basin West and the navigation channel and fairway from Dublin Port into Dublin Bay from its current depth of -7.8m Chart Datum (CD) to a depth of -10m CD as shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4.

Figure 3.3 Existing navigation channel and fairway bathymetry to Mean Sea Level (MSL)

Figure 3.4 Proposed navigation channel and fairway bathymetry to Mean Sea Level (MSL)

Alexandra Basin West Berths 52 / 53



3.2 EXISTING LAND USE


The existing land-use within Alexandra Basin West is solely Port related as shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 Alexandra Basin West – Existing Land-use

A description of each of the main components is presented below:

Berths 29 – 31

The vessels utilising Berths 29 to 31 within Alexandra Basin West are predominantly bulk carriers importing bulk cargo such as grain/feed-stuff. There are hopper systems and cranes on the quayside at these berths for handling of the bulk goods and transfer to road wagons or storage. There is an elevated conveyor system running along the length of the quay. Several buildings set back from the quay are used for bulk storage. Views of Berths 29 to 31 are shown in Plate 3.1.



Plate 3.1 Views of Berths 29 to 31

Berths 32 to 34

Berths 32 to 34 on the west side of Ocean Pier and within Alexandra Basin West are multi-purpose and are used for the importation and exportation of a wide variety of cargo including: Lift-on Lift-off off (Lo-Lo) containers; Roll-on Roll-off (Ro-Ro) containers, trailers and cars; bulk cargo; and break bulk cargo. Mobile cranes are used for cargo handling on these quays. Cruise ships also use these quays. There are two buildings on these quays which fall outside the Alexander Basin Redevelopment Project.

Bulk Jetty

The Bulk Jetty within Alexander Basin West is dedicated for the export of lead/zinc ore concentrates from Tara Mines. The jetty has a sealed conveyor system which connects back into a transfer building which takes the ore concentrates off train deliveries directly from the mines in Co. Meath. Whilst vessels can berth on both sides of the jetty, the hopper only delivers material to the northern side. The bulk jetty is shown in Plate 3.2.

Plate 3.2 View of the Bulk Jetty



North Wall Quay Extension

North Wall Quay Extension forms the outer part of Alexander Basin West, separating the basin from the River Liffey and forms the greater part of Terminal 3. Ro-Ro vessels use Ro-Ro ramps No. 4 and No. 6 located on either side of the North Wall Quay Extension. Ro-Ro ramp No. 4 is a dual level linkspan with a vertical quay wall on the southern side with pneumatic fenders. Ro-Ro ramp No. 6 is a single level linkspan and provides a river berth for Ro-Ro vessels and is the more used given its convenient river berth location. Both ramps are used by P&O.

A lighthouse, fabricated from steel, is located at end of the North Wall Quay Extension and is often used as a point of reference for vessels entering port. The North Wall Quay Extension and lighthouse are shown in Plate 3.3.

Plate 3.3 Views of North Wall Quay Extension

Graving Docks

There are two Graving Docks immediately to the north of Alexandra Basin West. Graving Dock #1, which is the older of the two docks dating from 1860, was filled in by Dublin Port Company in 2010. Graving Dock #2 was designed and built in the 1950’s. Graving Dock #2 is approximately 29m wide and 200m long and is used for ship repair and maintenance.

The lead in jetty to the south of the graving dock is occasionally used as an additional berth for vessels waiting to enter Graving Dock #2.



Berths 52 / 53 (Terminal 5)

The existing land-use at Berths 52 / 53, also known as Terminal 5, is solely Port related as shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 Berths 52 / 53 (Terminal 5) – Existing Land-use

Berths 52 / 53 are located in a basin at the eastern end of the Port, on the northern side of the River Liffey. Both berths 52 and 53 are fitted with Ro-Ro ramps, (Ramps No. 7 and No. 8) and are currently used by Seatruck for their Ro-Ro services to the UK.

Berth 53 had a new 30m wide floating linkspan (Ramp No. 8) installed in 2011. On the eastern edge of the berth is a vertical quay wall with pneumatic fenders.

Berth 52 has an older floating linkspan (Ramp No. 7) which is 20m wide. There are berthing dolphins to the western side with pneumatic fenders on the seaward face. There is a rock revetment on the western and northern banks of the basin.

Navigation Channel – Existing use

The navigation channel is controlled by Dublin Port Company which is the competent authority with responsibility for the safe passage of all shipping entering and leaving the Port. No other commercial activities are permitted within the navigation channel for safety reasons. Maintenance dredging of the navigation channel takes place on a regular basis to maintain a depth of -7.8m CD.



4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This chapter of the Environmental Impact Statement describes the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. Consideration is also given to construction activities associated with the works and operation and maintenance of the completed facilities.

The proposed development is located within the confines of Dublin Port Company’s land and the navigation channel approaching Dublin Port.

4.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WORKS

This section of the EIS describes the proposed quay wall improvements, dredging and infill works required to achieve the project objectives.

Figure 4.1A below shows the site location plan for the overall scheme.

Figure 4.1A Site Location Plan

The proposed development works comprise the following elements, full details of which are included on the planning application drawings:

Navigation Channel (extent shown on Figure 4.1A above)

• Dredging of Liffey Channel to -10m CD, from East Link Bridge to Dublin Bay Buoy over a six year period

• Construction of surge protection/retaining wall at Poolbeg Marina



Alexandra Basin (as per Figure 4.1B below)

• Dismantling of infrastructure and removal of infill material • Quay wall refurbishment/construction (designed to accommodate future dredging to a

level of -15.0m CD) • Installation of Ro-Ro ramps • Ro-Ro jetty construction • Dredging of basin and berths to -10.0m Chart Datum (CD) • Treatment of contaminated dredged material and re-use as infill on site • Excavation and restoration of Graving Dock No. 1 • Infilling of Graving Dock No. 2 with treated dredged material • Relocation of ore concentrates loading operations to Alexandra Quay West Extension • Development of cultural heritage interpretative space

Figure 4.1B Alexandra Basin West Works



Existing Berth 52 / 53 (as per Figure 4.1C below)

• Dismantling and removal of existing infrastructure • Infilling of existing Berth 52 / 53 with treated dredged material • Raising of existing surface levels by approx.1.4m • Quay wall construction • Mooring jetty construction • Installation of Ro-Ro ramp

Figure 4.1C Works at Existing Berth 52 / 53



Community Gain proposals

The community gain proposal comprises the transfer of ownership of a portion of Bull Island from Dublin Port Company to Dublin City Council and finance to facilitate the provision of information and facilities on the Island.

4.1.1 Alexandra Basin

The works proposed within Alexandra Basin West involve removal of infrastructure, quay wall refurbishment, dismantling of a section of the North Wall Quay Extension, dredging and infilling.

Quay Wall Construction

Proposed quay construction/refurbishment works within Alexandra Basin West include:

• Refurbishment of existing quay walls along Ocean Pier (approx 555m long) • Refurbishment of existing quay walls along Alexandra Quay West (approx 400m long) • Construction of new quay wall extension to Alexandra Quay West (approx 130m long) • Construction of new quay wall along Crossberth Quay (approx 250m long) • Installation of new mooring jetty for Ro-Ro berths (approx 273m long)

A dredge depth of -10.0m CD is proposed for Alexandra Basin, however, the quay wall infrastructure will be designed to facilitate possible future dredging to -15.0m CD.

Recesses will be formed in the quay walls to facilitate the construction of bankseat structures for the installation of Ro-Ro ramps.

The anticipated form of construction for the quay walls within Alexandra Basin West will comprise a steel combi-wall. This will consist of sheet piles extending between intermittent king piles. These king piles will be either steel H-sections or tubular steel sections. Typical sections of both forms of construction are shown below in Figure 4.2.



Tubular Pile Combi-Wall Construction

H-Pile Combi-Wall Construction

Figure 4.2 Typical Cross Sections of Combi-Wall Construction

The primary piles of front quay wall will be installed to a depth determined by a combination of factors including; the local bedrock level, condition of the bedrock, the condition of the overlying material, the imposed quay loadings and the final geometry of the selected pile profile. It is proposed to construct new quay walls and structures over a significant area of Dublin Port and it is anticipated that the bedrock level will vary to some degree along the proposed quay lines.



Based on available geotechnical information it is anticipated that the primary piles of the new quay walls will be installed to depths ranging between -20m ODM and -35m ODM, with the final depths depending on the local ground conditions and proximity to the standard dredge depth. In areas of relatively shallow bedrock the piles will be cored into the rock as required to achieve overall stability of the quay structure and to sustain any imposed loads. Intermediate sheet piles forming quay walls will be installed to depths in excess of the standard dredge depth to protect against undermining and loss of material from behind the quay wall. The final design and construction depth of intermediate sheet piles will be determined by local material properties but will extend beyond the dredge depth by 2-4m.

The quay wall will be tied to a sheet piled anchor wall or a reinforced concrete anchor beam, depending on the proximity of existing structures/operations to the quay side.

The berthing face to the quay structure will be formed by the installation of a reinforced concrete capping beam. Fenders will be fixed to the concrete capping beam to provide a suitable berthing face.

The deck behind the combi-wall quay will be reinstated to tie-in with the existing surfacing and deck levels.

The final choice of quay wall construction technique will be decided at detailed design stage and subsequent to further site investigation. However, both are similar in terms of installation methodology.

The form of construction for the 273m long Ro-Ro jetty proposed for Alexandra Basin will be an open pile structure, constructed using a series of piled mooring dolphins, which will be connected using a steel walkway structure.

A typical detail for the Ro-Ro jetty is shown in Figure 4.3 below.

Figure 4.3 Alexandra Basin Ro-Ro Jetty Form of Construction



4.1.2 North Wall Quay Extension

The proposals for the redevelopment of Alexandra Basin include the removal of an area of approximately 21,700m2 (equating to approx. 2.2 hectares) from the existing North Wall Quay Extension to facilitate access to Alexandra Basin for larger vessels.

The area to be removed is shown on Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4 Extent of North Wall Quay Extension Removal

The scheme also involves the re-fronting of the existing masonry walls with a steel combi-wall structure to facilitate dredging to -10.0m CD (and possible future dredging to -15.0m CD). The following quay wall works are proposed:

• Construction of a new quay wall along the Alexandra Basin West side of North Wall Quay Extension, (approx 351m long); and

• Re-fronting of the remaining existing quay wall along the Liffey river side of North Wall Quay Extension and along quay roundhead (approx 586m long).

The anticipated form of construction for these quay walls will also comprise a steel combi-wall with a reinforced concrete capping beam, as previously discussed. As part of the overall Conservation Strategy for the ABR Project, the new quay wall structure proposed for the North Wall Quay Extension will be modified to be cognisant of the historical nature of the structure.

Prior to the commencement of the modification works, 3D laser technology will be used to record the original quay structure both above and below water.

A salvage policy will be in place during the construction phase for the recovery of granite blocks for re-use, not only as part of this scheme and other areas of the port, but also for other noteworthy conservation schemes.



The Conservation Strategy for the project includes salvaging an intact 350 tonne concrete block (used by Bindon Blood Stoney as the foundations for the quay walls) for use in a publicly accessible interpretation area at the Western end of the quay (referred to as Interpretive Zone 1). The block will be augmented by a contemporary structure architecturally designed.

A 55m long section of the original quay wall adjacent to East Link Bridge will be retained in its original condition. This section of the quay wall will provide the public with a view of the original form of construction and quay wall features, including the granite facing block, steps, a recessed ladder and mooring ring complete with original granite surround (sample shown in Plate 4.1 below).

Plate 4.1 Existing Mooring Ring on North Wall Quay Extension

Six conservation zone recesses will be provided along the river side of the quay wall to allow the original wall to be legible, by showing features such as the original mooring rings and steps along the North Wall Quay Extension. Figure 4.5 below shows the location of these proposed recesses and Figure 4.6 shows the proposed detail for the opening at the existing mooring ring locations. Details of proposed conservation zones are included in the MOLA Architecture drawings and the Conservation Strategy.



Figure 4.5 Location of Conservation Zone Recesses

Figure 4.6 Mooring Ring Opening Detail

A high quality reconstruction of the quay end will be undertaken to include the lighthouse, with a curved granite wall protruding above the fender line on the eastern end of the new quay. This detail is shown in Figure 4.7. This area will form a public interpretation zone with controlled access, given that it is located within an operational area of the Port.



Figure 4.7 North Wall Lighthouse Detail

Salvaged granite blocks will be used as paving blocks to provide a delineated walkway extending from the interpretive conservation zone adjacent to East Link Bridge, along the centre of the quay, to the lighthouse interpretative zone at the eastern end of the quay.

Quay wall granite blocks will be reused to delineate the line of the original quay along the surface of the new quay structure.

Dismantling and Removal of Existing Structures

In order to facilitate the redevelopment of Alexandra Basin West, the dismantling and removal of the following infrastructure is required:

• Bulk jetty (approx area of 3,200m2) • Lead-in jetty at Graving Dock No.2 (approx area of 1,200m2) • Section of North Wall Quay Extension (approx area of 21,700m2) • P&O Buildings (total approx area of 1,715m2) • Ramp No. 4 within Alexandra Basin • Ramp No.6 along North Wall Quay Extension

The locations of the infrastructure to be removed are shown on Figure 4.8.



Figure 4.8 Alexandra Basin West Infrastructure to be removed A Management Asbestos Survey was undertaken on the buildings and structures in Alexandra Basin to be demolished as part of the scheme (attached in Appendix 4) to provide initial indication of asbestos containing materials (ACMs). The survey was completed in accordance with the Irish Health and Safety Authority (HSA) guidance document Asbestos-containing Materials (ACMs) in Workplaces - Practical Guidelines on ACM Management and Abatement (2013) and the UK guidance document HSG264 Asbestos: The Survey Guide (Health & Safety Executive, 2010). No suspected asbestos containing materials were identified in the marine structures and ramps during the management survey. Asbestos gaskets were identified in the boiler room of the P&O Head Offices building. Whilst these works (to remove the asbestos gaskets) do not require a licenced contractor, they should be disposed of as asbestos waste. A number of areas could not be accessed during the survey, as listed in the survey report, and must be presumed to contain asbestos until assessed by a competent person. In any event, these items/areas should be subject to a detailed asbestos survey prior to demolition. Where appropriate, the material generated from the removal of the above listed infrastructure will be screened and re-used onsite within the Port. All other material will be disposed of offsite in accordance with all relevant statutory requirements and regulations. As noted earlier, it is proposed to recover the granite facing blocks from the dismantling of the North Wall Quay Extension. These will be beneficially re-used as outlined in the Conservation Strategy. It is proposed to remove an existing stockpile of infill material (approx 110,000m3) from the northwest corner of Alexandra Basin West. This stockpile consists of bunds formed using made ground from within the Port and railway ballast, filled with silt material from previous extension works to Berth 50. This material will be re-used for other construction activities within the Port.



As part of the overall Conservation Strategy for the scheme it is proposed to excavate and restore Graving Dock No.1. This was previously infilled by Dublin Port Company with approximately 19,000m3 of clean sand and capped with 1,000m3 of crushed concrete. It is envisaged that the excavated sand and crushed concrete will be beneficially re-used for construction activities within the Port.

Dredging

As part of this scheme, Alexandra Basin West will be dredged to -10.0m CD. In order to achieve this, approximately 470,000m3 of material must be removed from the basin.

Extensive sampling and environmental testing has shown that this material is contaminated with heavy metals. The methodology for the dredging of contaminated material is discussed in Section 4.1.4 of this Chapter.

Treatment and Re-use of Material

The dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin West will be treated and transported by barge to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53. It will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material, to allow its re-use as fill material for reclamation works identified within the Port. This process is explained in more detail in Section 4.1.4 of this Chapter.

As part of this scheme it is proposed to seal and fill Graving Dock No. 2 at Alexandra Basin West to provide space for open hardstanding space for storage/parking. It is envisaged that approximately 55,000m3 of treated material will be required, which will be transported from the treatment facility at Berth 52/53 to the Graving Dock No. 2 by trucks along the internal port road network. The graving dock will be filled with treated material and capped with crushed material to tie in with the surrounding surface levels. A layer of sand and a geotextile material will be placed in the graving dock, prior to the infilling, to act as a separation layer. This will facilitate future reversal of the infilling works if required.

Surfacing

The reinstated areas behind the quay walls and the reclamation area at Graving Dock Nr 2 will be surfaced using a combination of concrete slabs and bituminous surfacing or block paving for trafficked areas and trailer parking.

The North Wall Quay Extension will be surfaced using a flexible heavy duty pavement, with specific areas identified for the use of salvaged granite setts to highlight conservation areas along the quay (see Conservation Strategy under separate cover).

4.1.3 Existing Berth 52 / 53

The works proposed at Berth 52 / 53 involve the removal of existing infrastructure, quay wall construction and infilling with treated dredge material to provide a large hardstanding area for open storage (see Figure 4.1C).



Infrastructure

The following infrastructure is proposed to facilitate the development of Berth 52 / 53:

• Construction of a new quay wall at Berth 52 / 53 (approx 300m long) • Construction of new 75m long mooring jetty for New Berth 52 • Construction of new 40m long mooring jetty to extend existing Berth 49

As part of this scheme it is proposed to dredge a berthing pocket to -10.0m CD along the new quay wall, however, the quay infrastructure will be designed to facilitate potential future dredging to -15.0m CD. It is anticipated that a cellular cofferdam form of construction will be used to close off Berth 52/53 from the main navigation channel. The existing bed level along the proposed line of the quay will be excavated to the required level; the cells will then be constructed sequentially from the East side of the Berth using interlocking sheet piles and filled with suitable granular material. The cells will be constructed using piling plant, initially operating from the existing revetment and then from the preceding cell in turn once completed.

Fenders will be mounted on the Southern face of the cofferdams to provide a berthing face for the proposed multi-purpose berth. Associated mooring and berthing dolphins will be installed to the East of the Berth to stabilise the existing revetment for dredging operations. The form of construction for the mooring jetties proposed at Berth 52 / 53 and Berth 49 will be an open pile structure, constructed using a series of piled mooring dolphins, which will be connected using a steel walkway structure.

A two tier concrete approach structure with piled bridge supports is also required to provide access to ramp No. 4 from the new river berth quay. Reinforced concrete dolphin structures will also be required to facilitate the installation of ramp No.4 from Alexandra Basin.

Dismantling and Removal of Existing Structures

As part of the proposed works at Berth 52 / 53, there is a requirement to dismantle and remove the existing infrastructure in the basin (Figure 4.9), namely:

• Open pile jetty at Berth 52 (approx. area 500m2) • Concrete dolphin at Berth 53 (approx. area 100m2) • Ro-Ro ramp No. 8- to be relocated to Alexandra Basin for re-use • Ro-Ro ramp No. 7- to be decommissioned



Figure 4.9 Berth 52 / 53 Infrastructure to be removed

A Management Asbestos Survey was undertaken on the structures at Berth 52 and 53 to be demolished as part of the scheme (attached in Appendix 4). No suspected asbestos containing materials were identified in the marine structures. Limited access was available to the underside of these structures, therefore, they should be subject to a detailed asbestos survey prior to demolition

Treatment and Re-use of Material

The dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin will be treated and transported by barge to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52 / 53. It will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material, to allow its re-use as fill material.

As part of this scheme it is proposed to fill the basin at Berth 52 / 53 to provide open storage space and a new river berth at the port entrance. It is also proposed to raise the surface levels at the marshalling area adjacent to the infilled basin at Berth 52 / 53 by approximately 1.4m.

The material will be treated and placed in Berth 52 / 53 to tie in with the proposed reclamation levels for the area adjacent to the basin. The volume of treated dredge material required for these operations are outlined in Table 4.1.



Table 4.1 Berth 52 / 53 Infill Volumes

Receptor Volume (cubic metres)

Infilling of Basin at Berth 52/53 (to existing levels adjacent to basin) 400,000

Raising level of infilled basin to +7.1m CD (+4.6m O.D.M.) 49,000

Raising level of area adjacent to infilled basin to +7.1m CD (+4.6m O.D.M.) 70,000

Total Volume of Infill at Berth 52/53 519,000

The treatment facility will initially be positioned to the East of and immediately adjacent to Berth 52 / 53. The material will be removed from the barges, which will be surrounded by spill plates at the new cellular cofferdam and transported to the treatment site.

The existing surfacing over the southern half of the fill area shown on Figure 4.1C will be stripped in sections and stored on the northern half for reuse. Treated material will be spread over these stripped sections, with the existing surfacing reinstated to overlay the treated material. This operation will raise the existing levels by approximately 1.4m.

The treatment facility will be repositioned within this southern area to permit all sections to be raised to match the surrounding levels.

Following on from this, the process will be repeated to allow the northern half of the fill area to be filled to the required level. The surfacing can then be reinstated and sloped accordingly to tie in with the surrounding surface levels. Suitably sized rock armour will be placed along the eastern sloped edge of the raised area, in keeping with the existing revetment.

Existing surface levels will be retained around the Terminal 5 substation to avoid any impact on the building or cables. A buffer zone will be provided around the perimeter of the building and a slope will be formed around the extremities to meet the surrounding raised levels. An upstand wall will be provided along the top of the slopes and an access ramp will be provided to retain vehicular access to the substation.

Surfacing

The infill area at Berth 52 / 53 and the raised area adjacent to the infill site will be surfaced using a combination of concrete slabs and bituminous surfacing or block paving for trafficked areas and trailer parking.

4.1.4 Navigation Channel

Marina Protection Works

In order to negate any potential impact of the channel dredging or the alterations to the North Wall Quay Extension on the Poolbeg Marina, it is proposed to construct a 220m long surge protection/retaining wall, with a new floating pontoon along the edge of navigation channel at



Poolbeg Marina. This structure will also serve to protect vessels moored in the marina from the wash produced by vessels manoeuvring in the vicinity of North Wall Quay Extension.

It is envisaged that the form of construction used will be a steel combi-wall (see Figure 4.2). The proposed wall will be designed to facilitate possible future dredging to -12.0m CD. Figure 4.10 shows a section through the proposed structure.

Figure 4.10 Structure at Poolbeg Marina

Great South Wall Protection Works

It is envisaged that stabilisation works will be required to the Great South Wall to negate any impact from the channel dredging and realignment. These works will include the placement of additional rock armour to protect the lower existing rock armour slopes around the bull lighthouse to prevent any undermining of the existing structure. The dredged side slopes will also be steepened and stabilised at this location using concrete mattresses. Typical concrete mattresses are shown in Plate 4.2.



Plate 4.2 Concrete Mattresses being Lifted into Position

In order to avoid the encroachment of the dredge channel into the Special Protection Area (SPA) adjacent to New Berth 52, it is necessary to steepen the dredged side slopes. Cable tied concrete mattresses will also be placed on the slopes along this stretch of the channel to stabilise the slopes.

Dredging and Disposal

The following dredging will be undertaken as part of the proposed works to permit access to Alexandra Basin and provide sufficient water depths for vessels in Alexandra Basin at all stages of the tide:

• Dredging of Alexandra Basin to -10.0m CD

• Dredging of the Liffey Channel to -10.0m CD from the East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy.

This equates to approximately 6,370,000m3 of dredging. The alignment of the dredge channel is shown in Figure 4.1A.

Bed conditions in Alexandra Basin West comprise sandy, silty, clays. The navigation channel within the port consists of silts, fine sands and gravels. The outer channel consists of fine sands, with silts forming the channel side slopes.

A suite of sampling and environmental testing has been undertaken to quantify and identify the nature of the contamination within the bed materials of Alexandra Basin West and the Liffey Channel.



The results shows that the bed materials within the Alexandra Basin West are contaminated with heavy metals such as Arsenic, Copper, Chromium, Cadmium, Nickel, Lead, Mercury and Zinc at depths exceeding 2m.

Lower levels of contamination were recorded in the channel sediments adjacent to the basin. The volumes of material to be dredged are outlined in Table 4.2 and the locations of these areas are shown in Figure 4.11 below.

Table 4.2 Dredge Volumes

Source Location Material Status Approx Volume (m3)

Alexandra Basin West Heavily Contaminated 470,000

Navigation Channel Slight/Moderately Contaminated 500,000

Navigation Channel Uncontaminated 5,400,000

Total Volume - 6,370,000

Figure 4.11 Dredge Material Locations

Consultations with the Marine Institute have indicated that the contaminated material within Alexandra Basin West is not suitable for disposal at sea. Therefore it is proposed that this material will be treated and re-used for reclamation within the Port.



Under previous dredging campaigns the disposal of slight/moderately contaminated material to a designated sea disposal site has been permitted with specific conditions in place (capping).

It is therefore envisaged that the slight/moderately contaminated material from the navigation channel will be suitable for disposal at sea with the same restrictions imposed as per the previous dredging campaign.

Dredging of Uncontaminated Material

Uncontaminated dredged material will be transported and disposed of at the licensed Burford Bank offshore disposal site. The nature of this disposal site is discussed in Chapter 9 Coastal Processes.

It is envisaged that the dredging of uncontaminated material will be carried out during winter months only (October to March) to negate any potential impact on salmonid migration and summer bird feeding, notably terns, in the vicinity of the dredging operations.

The channel dredging will be apportioned to be undertaken over a period of six winter seasons, commencing at the channel mouth and continuing westwards into the port.

Within each portion, the channel will be dredged to the required depth along one side, maintaining an open shipping lane at all times. Once completed, the opposite side of the channel will be dredged to depth, with the shipping lane changed to the newly dredged section.

The marine sediments from the outer channel, comprising mainly fine sands, between the North Bull Wall / Great South Wall and the Dublin Bay Buoy will be dredged using a Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger, or equivalent. The dredger will transport the material directly to the licensed sea disposal site (see Chapter 9 Coastal Processes).

Inside the Port’s walls, the bed material changes to silts, sands and gravel. This section of the channel will be dredged to the required design depths by an excavator which will operate from a floating pontoon. The dredged material will be loaded into barges and transported directly to the licensed sea disposal site.

Disposal of dredged material to the licensed dump site will require application for a Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA.

Dredging of Contaminated Material

Dredging of contaminated material will be undertaken to the design dredge level for the scheme. The dredging will be undertaken using a floating pontoon with an excavator mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging. This will minimise the disturbance and escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water column.



Slight/Moderately Contaminated Sediments in the Liffey Channel

Dredging of slight/moderately contaminated silty material adjacent to the North Wall Quay Extension and the entrance to Alexandra Basin West will be undertaken in conjunction with the dredging of gravels from the main channel. The slight/moderately contaminated silts deposited at the dump site will be overlaid (capped) with the dredged gravels.

Disposal of this dredged material to the licensed dump site will require application for a Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA. DPC attended two pre-application consultation meetings with EPA on 19th September 2013 and 10th December 2013.

Heavily Contaminated Sediments in Alexandra Basin West

For the dredging of Alexandra Basin West, a silt curtain will be utilised around the dredger whilst the dredging of contaminated material is ongoing.

It is envisaged that the dredging of the contaminated sediments will not be seasonally dependent, as the silt curtain will serve to prevent the spread of suspended contaminated sediments beyond the dredge foot print.

This dredged material will be loaded onto barges to be transported to the treatment facility at Berth 52/53. No overtopping of barges will be permitted and spill plates will be utilised to prevent spillage during offloading operations.

In order to minimise the stockpiling of dredged material, the rate of dredging will be determined by the rate of treatment of the dredged material.

The treatment process proposed for the contaminated material is discussed in Chapter 11 - Soils and Geology.

Infilling Works

It is proposed to seal off and infill Graving Dock No. 2 and Berth 52/53 with treated material dredged from Alexandra Basin. It is also proposed to raise existing surface levels to approximately +7.1m CD (+4.59m O.D.M) over an area of approximately 95,000m2 in the area of Berth 52/53. A summary of the infilling works to be undertaken as part of the ABR Project is shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Summary of Infill Works

Receptor Volume (cubic metres)

Total Volume of Infill at Berth 52/53 519,000

Graving Dock Nr. 2 55,000

Total receptor capacity 574,000



4.1.5 Port Equipment

The works associated with this scheme are required to permit a reconfiguration of the existing operations within Alexandra Basin West and at Berth 52 / 53. It is therefore envisaged that all operations within these areas will be similar to current operations. In order to facilitate the operations within the proposed basin layout and at the new river berth at 52/53, it is necessary to reconfigure existing equipment and install new equipment such as:

• Relocation of existing ramp No. 8 from Berth 53 to Crossberth Quay; • Installation of ramp No. 8 and 1nr new Ro-Ro ramp to serve 273m long Ro-Ro jetty;

• Relocation of double deck ramp No. 4 from Alexandra Basin to the new Berth 52;

• Installation of double Ro-Ro ramp at intersection between Alexandra Quay West and

Ocean Pier West; and

• The relocation of the ore concentrates loading operations to new quay across entrance to Graving Dock No.2.

There is no proposal for additional cranes within the port, as part of this scheme, other than normal upgrading of harbour mobile cranes as and when required.

A recess and bankseat structure will be constructed in the Crossberth Quay adjacent to the North Wall Quay Extension. This will facilitate the installation of a Ro-Ro ramp at a later date. However, as part of this scheme, it is envisaged that this recess will be covered to provide a continuous deck and quay face.

Crane rail beams supported on piles will be incorporated into the new quay wall on Ocean Pier. These beams will future proof the quay, permitting the possible installation of crane rails at a later stage. The installation of crane rails is not proposed as part of this scheme.

Table 4.4 outlines the existing Port activities at Alexandra Basin West and Berth 52 / 53, the proposed activities and the equipment/services required to facilitate the reconfiguration of operations.



Table 4.4 Summary of Port activities and equipment required

Area of Port Current Activity

Proposed Activity Equipment Required

Alexandra Quay West

Feed Multipurpose Berths Double Ro-Ro ramp at intersection between Ocean Pier West and Alexandra Quay West

Bulk

Bulk Jetty Ore Concentrates

To be removed and ore operations relocated to extended Alexandra Quay

Conveyor System to be installed on Alexandra Quay West

Crossberth Quay None Ro-Ro Berth Ro-Ro jetty and two ramps

Ocean Pier Bulk Multipurpose Berths Double Ro-Ro ramp at intersection between Ocean Pier and Alexandra Quay Containers


Ro-Ro Multipurpose Berths - Cruise ships (during

cruise season) - Car transporters - Ro-Ro for general cargo - Visiting naval ships

Ro-Ro ramp on basin side of North Wall Quay Extension

Berth 52/53 Ro-Ro Ro-Ro Double Tiered Ramp & Mooring Jetty at New River Berth for longer multipurpose Ro-Ro ferries

Berth 49 Ro-Ro Multipurpose Ro-Ro Berth Mooring jetty to extend existing berth for longer multipurpose Ro-Ro ferries

Services and Security

The proposed scheme will be provided with the following services and security features.

Drainage System

The reclaimed infill area at Graving Dock No. 2 will require a suitable drainage system. Storm water runoff from this site will be collected and passed into the existing storm water drainage system. The storm water drainage system will collect rainwater incident upon the site for discharge to the harbour waters via a series of existing silt traps, oil interceptors/separators and outfalls.

The outfall pipes for the existing storm water drainage system on the site will be extended through the proposed quay walls as part of the proposed works.

A new drainage system will be required for the newly shaped North Wall Quay Extension. This system will include appropriate interceptors/separators and will be discharged by outfalls through the new quay walls.



The reclamation area at Berth 52 / 53 will also require a new drainage system. All existing outfalls will be extended through the proposed reclamation and quay wall. A new drainage system will be required for the infilled area. This will incorporate a full retention system and will tie into the existing system at the outfall point in the quay wall. Water Supply Water supply will be by connection to the local mains system.

Mechanical and Electrical Services

The proposed lighting for the marshalling areas at Berth 52 / 53, North Wall Quay Extension and along the Western side of Alexandra Basin will comprise 30m high, raising and lowering masts with multiple floodlight arrangements, comprising Abacus Rhea AL5216 units, with 1,000W SON-T lamps. LED fittings will be used for high mast lights.

Lighting has been designed to provide an average lighting level of 50 lux in these areas. Proposed lighting layouts are shown in the planning drawings.

There are no proposals to alter the existing lighting along Alexandra Quay West and Ocean Pier.

The lighting will be designed and fitted onsite with the aid of a laser guidance technique to ensure consistency with the design, and to prevent direct glare into surrounding properties and illumination of the night sky.

Power supply will be by connection to the local electricity grid system.

Ducting will be installed along all new quay walls proposed in this scheme to allow for the installation of ship to shore power, should the future operations of the port necessitate this.

Fencing and Security

Appropriate security fencing will be provided around the boundary of the infilled area at New Berth 52 and the marshalling area at the North Wall Quay Extension to comply with the requirements of the International Ship and Port facility Security Code (ISPS). The fencing will be painted in a dark colour to minimise its visual impact. Security gates will be positioned at the entrance/exits to these areas.

CCTV cameras will be installed within the site of the marshalling and storage areas at New Berth 52 and the North Wall Quay Extension.

Safety Equipment

All quayside areas will be provided with mooring bollards, ladders and safety chains in accordance with the requirements of BS6349 Code of Practice for Maritime Structures.

Fire hydrants will be provided at regular intervals in all working and storage areas.



Navigation Equipment

In order to accommodate the proposed works there will be some amendments to the existing navigation markers which shall be carried out in conjunction with the Harbour Master and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The relevant changes are illustrated on the planning application drawings.

Navigation simulations have been carried out by Dublin Port Company pilots, personnel from the Harbour Masters department and a cruise ship captain to confirm the proposed port layout can be accessed in a safe and efficient manner. These simulations were carried out at the National Maritime College of Ireland in Ringaskiddy. The simulation exercise confirmed that there will be no difficulties with the handling of vessels up to 350m LOA and that the proposed layout for the North Quay Extension and Alexandra Basin is suitable for safe use by the proposed vessels.

The positions of the required navigation buoys for the channel are shown on the Channel package of planning drawings.

Port Access

It is proposed to close the following accesses:

• Alexandra Road will be closed to all vehicular traffic (except that associated with Dublin Port Company Headquarters). The existing gates adjacent to the entrance to the Port Centre will be closed and locked, opening only to accommodate trains.

• Terminal 3 access will be closed by permanently locking the existing gates. All affected traffic will be redirected through the port to Promenade Road.

• The exit gate from the North Wall Quay Extension on to the East Wall Roundabout will be closed permanently to all vehicular access. A pedestrian access gate will be provided.

All other access and transport routes within the port will remain unchanged.

Landscaping Works

No planting is proposed as part of this scheme. The area around the excavated and restored Graving Dock No. 1, and the Interpretation Zone adjacent to East Link Bridge will be landscaped in line with the MOLA Architecture drawings.

Historic Structures Proposals

The scheme involves the retention and conservation of structures including three cranes and capstans associated with Graving Dock No. 2 with post 1970 structures of local significance only being demolished.

In line with the Conservation Strategy it is proposed to infill Graving Dock No. 2 with material removed from Alexandra Basin West.



The material will be stabilised and then placed in the dock on a suitable separation medium, such as a sand and geotextile layer, to facilitate any future reversal of the infilling process.

The existing pair of lock gates will be positioned at the intermediate gate positions within the dock and the entrance to Alexandra Basin West will be closed by the new quay wall. A structural deck slab, supported on tubular piles, will form the new quay surface and transfer imposed loading from harbour cranes, loading hoppers and conveyors, through piles to the underlying bedrock. The suspended quay slab will also provide stability to the quay wall while protecting the underlying dock from these substantial imposed loads.

The tubular piles will be installed at locations to minimise impact on the existing dock structure through isolation sleeves; these are cored through the dock floor in advance, to minimise the impact of piling operations and future loading on the existing structure. Inclined ground anchors will be installed from the deck slab through the dock floor to provide additional stability to the primary quay wall.

If required in the future, these works can be reversed to return the graving dock to its current condition, with minimal impact on the structural fabric of the dock.

As part of the Conservation Strategy for the scheme, Graving Dock No. 1 will be excavated and restored. This graving dock and its curtilage will be accessible to the public on a regulated basis under DPC's supervision.

It is proposed to restore the pump house adjacent to Graving Dock No. 1 by undertaking necessary repairs to the external envelope, such as re-slating its roof with natural tiles, repairing red brick and redecorating external joinery.

A conservation area is proposed along the western port boundary wall along East Wall Road. The original granite setts along the east side of the port boundary wall will be used to delineate the original quay line. These will therefore be retained in-situ. The entrance gates will also remain in place.

The proposals for these historic structures are covered in more detail in Chapter 12 Cultural Heritage and in the Conservation Strategy.

4.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

4.2.1 Programme/Phasing

The construction activities are divided between two primary work streams: the civil engineering works required to facilitate the creation of deep berths and enclose Berths 52 / 53 and dredging of the main channel and of Alexandra Basin West. These civil engineering works are broken into three distinct, sequential phases. A flow chart detailing the order of these works is contained in Figure 4.13.

A draft construction programme has been developed, based on this order of works, as part of this application and is contained in Appendix 4. The draft programme includes a three month break in marine based piling operations between March and May (inclusive), to mitigate against any potential impact on migrating smolts in the river channel.



4.2.2 Dredging

There are two distinct dredging phases within the project. The rate of dredging of the main channel is determined by the capacity of the disposal site to accommodate the material deposited and the length of dredging season, typically six months / annum.

Considering these two constraints it is estimated that the main channel dredging could be completed, given favourable conditions, within six years. A secondary constraint is the requirement to have the North Wall Quay Extension and the Marina Wall works completed prior to undertaking the dredging of the channel adjacent to these works.

In addition, consideration will be given to any enabling works required in the vicinity of the Great South Wall prior to dredging in the adjacent area.

The dredging of Alexandra Basin West is dependent upon two preceding work streams; the closing of Berths 52 / 53 with a cellular cofferdam, to allow infilling of the area behind with the dredged material (following treatment and stabilisation), and the requirement to have sufficient re-fronted quay wall established to facilitate the dredged depth. The rate of dredging within Alexandra Basin West will be determined by the rate of treatment of the dredged material.

4.2.3 Civil Engineering Works

The civil engineering works largely comprise the re-fronting of the existing quay walls within Alexandra Basin West and the reconfiguration of existing berths within the basin and in Berths 52 / 53.

Given that no additional new berths are created during the course of the works there are significant operational challenges associated with maintaining and continuing port operations during the reconfiguration of the berths in the two affected areas. These dictate that a sequential and interconnected phasing of the works is required.

It is proposed to carry out the works in three distinct but overlapping phases, largely determined by operational requirements involving transfer of customer operations as berths are reconfigured. The overall sequence is outlined in Figure 4.13.



Figure 4.13 Project Construction Phases

It is envisaged that the following works will be undertaken during the first phase of the construction stage:

• Construction of new quay walls and the reconfiguring of existing loading facilities within the North West corner of Alexandra Basin West

• Demolition of existing vessel loading jetties and plant

• Re-fronting of Ocean Pier

• Construction of the new berths on Crossberth Quay

• Relocation of customers from existing Berths 52 / 53 to Crossberth Quay berths

The second phase of the project will include the following works:

• Closure of Berths 52 / 53



• Construction of New Berth 52 (river berth)

• Relocation of customers from Alexandra Basin West back to New Berth 52

• Re-fronting of Alexandra Quay West

• Dredging of Alexandra Basin West

• Treatment of dredge material and infilling of Graving Dock No. 2 and Berths 52 / 53

The third phase of the project comprises two distinct constructions:

• Installation of a new Marina wall on the Southern Side of the channel at Poolbeg marina

• Deconstruction, re-fronting and conservation of the North Wall Quay Extension

It is anticipated that each of the three phases will last between 18 and 24 months, overlapping to give construction duration of 36-47months (excluding channel dredging).

Temporary Site Compound

An area will be required for the establishment of the contractor’s site compound. The site compound will be used for the contractor’s site office accommodation and facilities and will include an area for temporary storage of construction materials.

An area will be allocated to accommodate the contractor’s compound for plant and materials which is to be agreed with the Port. A suitable area will be made available on existing port lands close to the site of the proposed works within Alexandra Basin West.

An additional area will also be made available adjacent to Berth 52 / 53 for both a dedicated treatment facility and contractor’s site compound.

Once the reclamation works have been commenced at Berth 52 / 53, further areas will be available to the contractor.

The contractor's compounds will be secured by the contractor.

Pollution Control

The construction works will involve civil and marine engineering works and mechanical and electrical works.

All machinery used during the construction phase of the works will be required to be in good working order and free from oil and hydraulic fluid leakages. If machinery maintenance has to take place, it will be carried out at least 100m away from the sea. Fuel for machinery will be required to be stored in a secure and bunded area.



Certain elements of the works may be constructed using reinforced in-situ concrete. No losses of concrete (cement) to the sea will be permitted during this phase of the works.

The proposed dredging works will be undertaken in a manner which will minimize the suspended solids loading within the water column.

Site Safety Safety will be of prime importance during the construction works. The works will be subject to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations, 2013. All aspects of design construction will be reviewed with regard to health and safety and a risk assessment will be carried out.

A project supervisor (design phase) will be appointed to produce a pre-tender Health and Safety Plan for the project. The principal contractor will be responsible for the control and co-ordination of health and safety during the works and will be appointed as the project supervisor (construction stage).

Waste Disposal

Contractors working on site during the works will be responsible for the collection, control and disposal of all wastes generated by the works. An indication of the types of waste likely to be generated by the works and the most appropriate method of disposal are presented in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Typical Wastes Generated by the Construction Works and recommended disposal / treatment options

Activity Waste Generated Disposal/Treatment Recommendations

Demolition Waste Construction materials, concrete, steel, clay pipes

Collected onsite for disposal by licensed waste contractor.

General Construction Waste

Waste oils Collected by waste recycling contractor.

Other waste Collected in skips for disposal by licensed waste contractor.

General Office/Messing Paper, packaging, canteen etc.

Collected in covered skips/large bins for disposal by a licensed waste contractor.

Temporary Site Toilets Sewage Emptied under contract for disposal at an appropriate facility.



4.3 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

4.3.1 Maintenance

When construction work has been completed, the quays will require minimal maintenance.

Although some siltation may occur in the new dredged areas, the water depth is such that this is unlikely to cause any significant problem in the short term.

Any maintenance dredging of the channel which may be required in the longer term will likely be carried out as part of DPC’s regular maintenance dredging programme. The material generated would likely be disposed of at sea at a licensed disposal site agreed in accordance with DPC’s maintenance dredging licence. This has been standard practice in the port for decades.

Environmental testing has shown that contaminated material is present within Alexandra Basin West below the proposed dredge level of -10.0m CD. Therefore, any further dredging of Alexandra Basin West would require additional sampling and testing to determine the extent of contamination and a suitable treatment technique.

4.3.2 Pollution Control

Surface water from the main quays and working areas will be collected by a system of drainage channels and gullies. The surface water will be discharged to sea via oil interceptors/separators to ensure that no pollution is released into the harbour or surrounding waters.

Waste Disposal from Vessels

DPC operates an Environmental Management System (EMS) which includes procedures for the disposal of waste from berthed vessels.

All waste to be disposed of from berthed vessels will be handled and disposed by a licensed waste disposal contractor. Waste awaiting disposal will not be permitted to be stored on the quayside.

Discharges from vessels to the harbour waters will not be permitted.



5. FLORA AND FAUNA

This Chapter of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assesses the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment in terms of birds, marine mammals, terrestrial ecology and marine ecology (including fisheries).

An Appropriate Assessment was also undertaken in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive and EU Birds Directive for the qualifying interests within the candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA) within Dublin Bay, estuary and surrounding area. The Appropriate Assessment is presented as a separate Habitats Directive Assessment - Natura Impact Statement supporting the Planning Application.

5.1 BIRDS

5.1.1 General Introduction

This section covers impacts on birds in the Dublin Port area and in the navigational channel and approaches to the port. It also addresses any possible impacts on the Special Protection Areas within Inner Dublin Bay.

5.1.2 Methodology

Bird surveys within the port area

The habitats within Dublin Port are highly artificial. Nevertheless, they are used by a limited number of bird species in both winter and summer. A desk review was undertaken of all previous information on birds in the port area and a series of baseline surveys were carried out over the full year January 2013 to January 2014. Additional surveys of wintering birds in the Tolka Estuary (between the Port and Clontarf) were carried out during the four winters up to, and including, 2012/13. During 2013/14, a series of boat-based surveys were also undertaken of seabirds in the navigation channel and approaches to the port. The methodologies for these surveys are outlined below.

Winter bird surveys

Brent Geese

The berths at Alexandra Basin West are used for the unloading of agricultural products and occasional spillage of these materials attracts flocks of Brent Geese to forage here. A series of surveys of Brent Geese was undertaken in Alexandra Basin West between January and April 2013 (12 surveys) and between October 2013 and January 2014 (five surveys). These surveys were targeted on a wide range of tide heights and ranges and different times of day. Geese were counted using 10 x 50 binoculars and any ringed birds were recorded with their alphanumerical codes. All other bird species present in Alexandra Basin West were also recorded on these dates.



Winter Bird Surveys in the Tolka Estuary

A total of 27 monthly low tide surveys have been undertaken between the months of September and April, over four winters, covering all of the intertidal areas in the Tolka Estuary from Fairview to the Bull Wall (Figure 5.1.1). Due to adverse weather, no surveys were undertaken in September or November 2010 but an additional survey was carried out in April 2011. All waterbird species have been mapped and counted in a total of nine sub-sectors.

On each date, the survey was started at or near the time of low tide and continued for two to three hours, or until the majority of birds had left the estuary. On a spring tide, most birds leave the estuary after mid-tide and fly north-east to the North Bull Lagoons where they ultimately spend the high-tide period. In most situations, a single count in the period two hours either side of low tide has been found to be the most accurate reflection of the maximum number of birds present on a site (Burton et al. 2004). All surveys of the Tolka Estuary were carried out in daylight.

Basic analysis has been undertaken to calculate peak counts and trends over the four years. This survey is being continued by BirdWatch Ireland through 2013/14 as part of the Dublin Bay Birds Project which is funded by the DPC.

Figure 5.1.1 Study area for winter bird monitoring in Tolka Estuary (outlined in red)



Breeding bird surveys

Black Guillemots

Black Guillemots breed throughout Dublin Port, mainly in the piers and other structures. They were surveyed using the methods outlined in Mitchell et al. (2004). The survey method involved early morning (05:00-09:00) counts of birds on the water between late March and mid-May at the start of the breeding season. A total of five surveys were undertaken in Alexandra Basin West and a full survey of the port from Butt Bridge to the Poolbeg Power Station was carried out on 17th May 2013. This survey was boat-based and was undertaken by two experienced observers.

Tern colonies

Dublin Port has held a breeding colony of Common Terns and Arctic Terns since at least 1949. In recent years the colony has established on two mooring dolphins close to the Poolbeg Power Station and this has been well-monitored since 1995 (Merne 2004). This monitoring has been continued since 2011 by BirdWatch Ireland. A total of six visits were made to the colony, as part of the Dublin Bay Birds project, between 3rd May and 9th September 2013 to census nesting terns. Breeding productivity of the terns has also been recorded by BirdWatch Ireland.

Bird surveys within the shipping channel

A series of six surveys of all birds located within the shipping channel, from the Alexandra Basin West to the Dublin Bay Buoy, was undertaken in the period June 2013 to January 2014. The methodology for these surveys followed the standard seabirds-at-sea census technique outlined by Camphuysen et al. (2002). The surveys were conducted by two experienced observers from the deck of a vessel, operated by DPC. A number of parallel transects at 600m spacing were followed on each survey. Recording of all birds present was undertaken simultaneously on both sides of the vessel out to a maximum distance of 300m. The study area was subdivided into six survey boxes (marked A to F in Figure 5.1.2). Birds were identified to species and their activity was recorded as flying, swimming, roosting, etc. Direction of flight was also recorded.



Figure 5.1.2 Study area for seabird surveys in the shipping channel and approaches to Dublin Port. The study area was subdivided into six survey boxes (marked A to F). The numbers 1-8 represent waypoints used for navigation purposes

5.1.3 Description of the existing environment

Designated areas

There are two designated Special Protection Areas (SPA) for birds in the vicinity of the proposed development and a further six SPAs on the wider Dublin coastline, that could have connectivity with the proposed development area. These are considered here because the proposed development may have some indirect impacts on species that are among their special conservation interests. These SPAs are:

South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary (site code 004024)

North Bull Island (site code 4006)

Skerries Islands (site code 4122)

Rockabill (site code 4014)

Lambay Island (site code 4069)

Ireland’s Eye (site code 4117)

Howth Head (site code 4113)

Dalkey Island (site code 4172)

The special conservation interests of these SPAs are listed in Table 5.1.1.



Table 5.1.1 Special Conservation Interests for the SPAs in the areas surrounding Dublin Bay

Special Conservation Interests for Special Protection Areas

Sou

th D

ublin

Bay

an

d R

iver

Tol

ka

Et

Nor

th B

ull i

slan

d

Ske

rrie

s Is

land

s

Roc

kabi

ll

Lam

bay

Isla

nd

Irela

nds

Eye

How

th H

ead

Dal

key

Isla

nd

Greylag Goose ● Light-bellied Brent Goose ● ● ● Shelduck ● Teal ● Pintail ● Shoveler ● Oystercatcher ● ● Ringed Plover ● Golden Plover ● Grey Plover ● ● Knot ● ● Sanderling ● ● Purple Sandpiper ● ● Dunlin ● ● Black-tailed Godwit ● Bar-tailed Godwit ● ● Curlew ● Redshank ● ● Turnstone ● ● Fulmar ● Cormorant ● ● ● Shag ● ● Roseate Tern ● ● ● Common Tern ● ● ● Arctic Tern ● ● ● Black-headed Gull ● ● Lesser Black-backed Gull ● Herring Gull ● ● ● Kittiwake ● ● ● Common Guillemot ● ● Razorbill ● ● Puffin ●



Bird populations within Dublin Port

Wintering birds

Brent Geese

Flocks of Brent Geese use the Alexandra Basin West between approximately November and April each winter. These birds breed in the high arctic of Northern Canada and migrate to Ireland in September and October. Initially, they forage on intertidal vegetation in Dublin Bay but, as the natural resources are depleted, they switch to feeding primarily on amenity grasslands around Dublin City (Benson 2009). The berths at Alexandra Basin West are used for the unloading of agricultural products and occasional spillage of these materials attracts flocks of Brent Geese to forage here from about November onwards.

The principal attraction for the geese in Alexandra Basin West is the spilled agricultural products that accumulate on the quays (mainly on Berths 29 to 31 and on Ocean Pier). For most of each day, a large flock is present swimming within the Basin. When there is no disturbance on the quayside, the geese fly up to feed intensively on the agricultural products. A peak of 450 geese was counted in Alexandra Basin West in both winters 2012/13 and 2013/14. The threshold for an internationally or nationally important site is one used regularly by over 260 geese (Boland and Crowe 2012).

A number of the Brent Geese has been colour-ringed by the Irish Brent Goose Research Group and these birds carry individual alpha-numerical codes that can be easily read from a stationary vehicle on the quay. A total of 11 individual ringed geese were identified in Alexandra Basin West in the period January to April 2013 and a further 10 ringed birds were identified in the period November 2013 to January 2014. The full re-sighting history of these marked individuals indicates that they use a wide variety of both intertidal and inland sites from Kilcoole Marshes in Co Wicklow to Baldoyle Bay in north Dublin.

Several of the individual geese have already been recorded repeatedly in Alexandra Basin West with at least 14 marked birds recorded more than once at the site and five marked birds re-sighted in both winters 2012/13 and 2013/14. One individual has been recorded in this flock on seven separate dates. This confirms that there is a high degree of site faithfulness and that some of the geese are becoming habituated to this food source.

Within the Dublin-Wicklow area, the birds commute around a large number of sites (mostly on amenity grassland). They often move between sites within the same day, largely due to disturbance (Benson 2009). While ships are unloading in Alexandra Basin West, the geese do not feed on the quay but most revert to feeding on nearby grassland. This was evident on 29th March 2013, when two of the ringed geese previously recorded in the Basin on 10th March were feeding in a flock at Irishtown Nature Reserve. Ringed geese, recorded regularly at Alexandra Basin West, have also been recorded feeding at Irishtown Stadium on the south side of Dublin Port. As the only attraction for the geese in Alexandra Basin West is the source of food in the agricultural products, they are likely to occur wherever these cargos are offloaded in the future.

These geese are widely travelled, making annual return migrations each year from arctic Canada, passing through Iceland, Northern Ireland (and occasionally Scotland) en route to Ireland, where they winter each year (Boland and Crowe 2012, Inger et al. 2006, Robinson et al. 2004). Brent Geese wintering in Ireland have shown a consistent increase since the early 1990s and Dublin Bay area now holds the largest single group in the Republic of Ireland, with



a peak of 5,290 geese in the period 2004/05-2008/09 (Boland and Crowe 2012). This makes the Dublin area of special importance and the conservation of this sector of the population is vital to the overall stability of the species.

Wintering birds in the Tolka Estuary

The Tolka Estuary is the nearest intertidal area to the Alexandra Basin West and to the Liffey Channel for shipping entering the Basin. The estuary is not covered in the monthly IWeBS1 counts as these are normally concentrated during the high tide period when most of the estuary is covered by water and the majority of the birds have moved to the Bull Island lagoons (Crowe 2005, 2006).

Monitoring of birds in the Tolka Estuary has been undertaken, on behalf of DPC, over the four winters 2009/10 to 2012/13. Table 5.1.2 gives a summary of the main species recorded over this period.

Table 5.1.2 Overall mean of all counts and mean of peak counts for each species in the Tolka Estuary during the four winters 2009/10 to 2012/13.

Species Scientific Name Overall mean

Mean Peak

Mute Swan Cygnus olor 0 4 Brent Goose Branta bernicla 312 855 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 9 37 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1 3 Wigeon Anas penelope 10 41 Teal Anas crecca 1 3 Pochard Aythya ferina 0 2 Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula 0 1 Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 1 3 Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 12 33 Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 3 9 Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata 0 0 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 0 0 Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus 11 35 Little Egret Egretta garzetta 1 3 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 7 14 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 316 458 Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula 0 0 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola 20 63 Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria 177 789 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 0 1 Knot Calidris canutus 541 2,251 Sanderling Calidris alba 2 12 Turnstone Arenaria interpres 34 67 Dunlin Calidris alpina 1,214 3,915 Redshank Tringa totanus 366 677

1 IWeBS is the Irish Wetland Bird Survey organised by BirdWatch Ireland.



Species Scientific Name Overall mean

Mean Peak

Greenshank Tringa nebularia 1 5 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 73 283 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica 690 1,419 Curlew Numenius arquata 281 498 Black-headed Gull Choicocephalus ridibundus 2,225 6,673 Common Gull Larus canus 68 251 Herring Gull Larus argentatus 247 544 Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus 14 62 Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus 10 26 Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle 0 1 Total waterbirds 19,035

The Tolka Estuary holds particularly large concentrations of Brent Goose, Oystercatcher, Golden Plover, Knot, Dunlin, Redshank, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Black-headed Gull, Common Gull and Herring Gull. The sum of peak counts for all species in the estuary in 2012/13 was 18,900 birds. This was close to the average of the previous three winters (19,080 birds). The total number of birds wintering in the entire area of Dublin Bay has been relatively stable over the last decade, although a decline was recorded in 2010/11 for the first time since 2003/04 (Crowe et al. 2012). The mean of peak counts in Dublin Bay over the last five winters is 31,700. The Tolka Estuary is thus a very important sub-site, especially at low tide, when it holds the majority of all the birds in Dublin Bay.

Breeding birds

Black Guillemots

Dublin Port holds a sizeable colony of breeding Black Guillemots, estimated at a minimum of 82 adult birds in May 2013. This could be considered as a loose breeding colony of at least 41 pairs (Figure 5.1.3). The birds breed throughout the Port in disused drainage pipes and other cavities, especially in the older piers and structures. A total of five early morning surveys of Alexandra Basin West were undertaken in April and May 2013. A peak of 16 birds was recorded in Alexandra Basin West on the 17th May 2013. This equates to eight breeding pairs and represents approximately 20% of the population in Dublin Port. The birds are very active in the early morning and commute in and out of the Port via the main Liffey channel. They feed on fish caught in shallow waters of Dublin Bay.

Black Guillemots are relatively common and widespread around the Irish coastline although, unlike most colonial seabirds, they rarely occur in large concentrations. Natural nest sites are generally in crevices at the base of rocky cliffs but they are also commonly nest in harbour walls and even in artificial nest boxes (Mitchell et al. 2004).



Figure 5.1.3 Results of a survey of Black Guillemots in Dublin Port on 17th May 2013. Figures refer to individual birds. Alexandra Basin is indicated by a blue rectangle.

Breeding Terns

Dublin Port has held a breeding colony of Common Terns (Sterna hirundo) and Arctic Terns (S. paradisaea) since at least 1949 and this has been well-monitored since 1995 (Merne 2004). The terns breed mainly on two mooring structures (known as the ESB and CDL dolphins) on the south side of the River Liffey, near the Poolbeg power station. The birds are generally present on these structures from May to August and numbers have been increasing steadily since the 1990s. In 2011, 499 pairs of Common Tern and 37 pairs of Arctic Tern bred and well over 700 chicks were ringed. Data for 2012 are not available but in late summer the majority of the chicks were predated on the nests and productivity was low (S. Newton, pers comm.).

A total of six visits were made by BirdWatch Ireland to the colony in 2013, between the 3rd May and the 9th September, to assess the success of the breeding season. At least 418 pairs of Common Terns nested on the ESB platform, and at least 25 pairs of Arctic Tern and one Common Tern nested on the CDL platform. The overall mean clutch size of Common and Arctic Tern nests combined was 2.40. A total of 449 Common Terns and 33 Arctic Terns were ringed. While breeding productivity could not be accurately calculated, the estimated minimum productivity, calculated as the number of fledged chicks per egg-laying pair, was 1.05 and 1.38 for Common and Arctic Terns respectively. No evidence of mammalian predators was recorded on either of the platforms in 2013. However a minimum of 69 eggs were depredated by avian predators (BirdWatch Ireland, unpublished data). This suggests a slight decrease in the size of the colony since 2011. It is likely that the structures used are at maximum capacity



and that there is little space for any expansion here. In 2013, a single pair of Common Terns also nested successfully on a moored raft in the Tolka Estuary to the north of Dublin Port.

Both species of terns can occasionally be seen feeding in the wake of large ships entering and leaving the port. Terns are occasionally recorded in Alexandra Basin West but do not regularly feed there.

Other bird species

A number of other bird species have been recorded regularly in Alexandra Basin West, although none of these (apart from pigeons) has been recorded breeding here. These are summarised in Table 5.1.3.

Table 5.1.3 Other bird species recorded in Alexandra Basin West in 2013

Species Scientific name Frequency

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea Single bird regularly recorded at the west end of the Basin

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Occasionally recorded roosting on jetties in the centre of the Basin

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos One or two pairs in the Basin throughout the year

Peregrine Falco peregrinus Single bird occasionally recorded hunting pigeons in the Basin

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus

Flocks regularly forage on spilt agricultural products on the quays.

Herring Gull Larus argentatus Small numbers of birds feed and roost in the Basin.

Great Black-backed Gull

Larus marinus Small numbers of birds feed and roost in the Basin. Occasionally prey on Black Guillemot.

Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea One or two birds recorded at the west end of the Basin

Feral Pigeon Columba livia (domest.) Large flocks feed throughout the year on spilt agricultural products on the quays

Bird populations in the shipping channel

Birds using the shipping channel and approaches to Dublin Port had not been surveyed prior to 2013 except in the section between the Tolka estuary and the Great South Wall where small numbers of Cormorants, Shags, Great Crested Grebes and Red-breasted Mergansers are frequently recorded in winter (see Table 5.1.1).

From June 2013 to January 2014 a series of six dedicated boat-based surveys of seabirds in the shipping channel area was undertaken. The area covered was from the Alexandra Basin West to the outermost limit of dredged channel at the Dublin Bay Buoy. The study area was divided into a series of six survey boxes as shown in Figure 5.1.2 and all parts of these were covered to within a distance of 300m. The overall results of the surveys are given in Table 5.1.4.



Table 5.1.4 Total number of birds recorded in the shipping channel in 2013-14

Species Scientific name Jun Jul Aug Sep Nov Jan Mean PeakGreat Northern Diver Gavia immer 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 3

Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Gannet Morus bassanus 21 8 0 7 0 0 6 21

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 84 90 131 138 107 73 104 138

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis 5 3 6 15 27 21 13 27

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota 0 0 0 0 9 301 52 301

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Wigeon Anas crecca 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 11

Teal Anas crecca 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 4

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Turnstone Arenaria interpres 0 10 6 0 0 0 3 10

Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus 0 6 3 4 2 1 3 6

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus 8 58 292 665 502 634 360 665

Common Gull Larus canus 1 7 5 0 3 59 13 59

Lesser Bl-backed Gull Larus fuscus 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 4

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 64 66 156 74 33 113 84 156

Great Bl-backed Gull Larus marinus 3 10 8 5 2 21 8 21

Larus gulls Larus species 0 0 0 1 0 61 10 61

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla 138 0 0 1 0 0 23 138

Gull species Unidentified gulls 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 3

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 46 173 121 0 0 0 57 173

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea 27 20 4 0 0 0 9 27

Common/ Arctic Tern Sterna species 86 245 5 1 0 0 56 245

Common Guillemot Uria aalge 36 7 56 56 77 61 49 77

Razorbill Alca torda 0 0 0 5 52 0 10 52

Black guillemot Cepphus grylle 50 56 5 4 8 13 23 56

The most abundant species throughout the surveys was Black-headed Gull with a peak of 665 in September. The majority of these birds were roosting on and around the outfall from the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Works. A large flock of Kittiwake was also foraging in the inner port in June but was not recorded for the rest of the year. Common and Arctic Terns were common in the port in June to August (the main breeding season) but were largely absent later on. Black Guillemots also used the shipping channel regularly during the breeding season (June and July) but were relatively scarce after that. Significant numbers of Cormorants and Herring Gulls use the port and shipping channel for foraging and roosting throughout the year and Common Guillemots were also present in most surveys. The flock of Brent Geese recorded in January was feeding within Alexandra Basin but moved to the shipping channel when disturbed. Most other species occurred irregularly or in small numbers.



5.1.4 Likely Significant Impacts

Summary of works within Alexandra Basin West Redevelopment

The redevelopment of Alexandra Basin West will include construction of new quays and jetties; remediation of contamination on the bed of the basin; capital dredging to deepen the basin and to achieve specified depths of up to -10m CD at the new berths (further detail is contained in Chapter 4). The dredging will involve removal of circa 0.47 million cubic metres of mainly silty material from the Alexander Basin West most of which is contaminated or partially contaminated.

A suite of sampling and environmental testing has been undertaken to quantify and identify the nature of the contamination within the bed materials of Alexandra Basin West. The results show that the bed material is contaminated with heavy metals such as Arsenic, Copper, Chromium, Cadmium, Nickel, Lead, Mercury and Zinc. High levels of contamination were measured within Alexandra Basin West at depths exceeding 2.0m. This material is deemed to be unsuitable for disposal at sea.

Dredging of contaminated material within Alexander Basin West will be undertaken to the design dredge level for the scheme. The dredging will be undertaken using a floating pontoon with an excavator mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging. This will minimise the disturbance and escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water column. A silt curtain will be utilised around the dredger whilst the dredging of contaminated material is ongoing. These will serve to reduce the spread of suspended contaminated sediments beyond the dredge foot print. The dredged material will be loaded onto barges to be transported to a treatment facility at Berths 52/53. In order to minimise the stockpiling of dredged material, the rate of dredging will be determined by the rate of treatment of the dredged material (see Chapter 4).

Impacts on birds

Brent Geese are present in Alexandra Basin West each winter from approximately November to April. The geese are attracted to feed from spilled agricultural products on the quays, mainly on Berths 29-33. They also swim in flocks on the water in the Basin. These birds move frequently between different parts of Dublin Bay and the species is one of the special conservation interests of the two Special Protection Areas in Dublin Bay. Numbers of geese recorded in Alexandra Basin West peaked at 450 birds in both winters 2012/13 and 2013/14. Recording of marked birds indicates that there is a high degree of site fidelity among the individual geese using the Basin.

Redevelopment of the quays and jetties in the Basin will take place on a phased basis so that shipping can continue to use parts of the Basin at all times. As agricultural products will continue to be unloaded here, albeit in different locations, the geese will continue to be attracted to the spillages. They are already habituated to high levels of shipping activity and associated noise so that construction noise is unlikely to have any additional effects. The geese will tolerate vehicles to a distance of less than 20m so it is likely that they will not be disturbed by construction vehicles. While the geese do swim on the surface of the Basin, they do not feed while on the water. They will thus not be exposed to contaminated sediments during the dredging operations. It is concluded that there will be no significant impact of this part of the proposed development on wintering Brent Geese within Alexandra Basin West.



Black Guillemots are present in Alexandra Basin West, mainly in spring and summer months. A maximum of 16 birds was recorded within the Basin in May 2013 and this represents about 20% of the total breeding population in Dublin Port. The birds breed in cavities within the existing quays and jetties, including a number of disused drainage pipes. These cavities will be removed preceding the redevelopment works to prevent their use by the birds during demolition. Mitigation measures will be introduced to provide alternative nest sites in neighbouring areas of the port, in advance of the redevelopment. Black Guillemots are rarely seen foraging in the water areas of the Basin as it is unlikely that their preferred fish prey occurs here in sufficient density.

The breeding tern colonies on the mooring dolphins in Dublin Port are sufficiently remote from Alexandra Basin West (approximately 2km) and will not be directly affected by the redevelopment works. Terns are rarely recorded flying within the Basin as it is unlikely that their preferred fish prey occurs here in sufficient density. The dredging of spoil from the Basin will not therefore have any indirect impacts on breeding terns.

The other incidental bird species, listed in Table 5.1.3, either forage on the spilled agricultural products in Alexandra Basin West (Mallard, Feral Pigeon, Grey Wagtail) or roost on some of the jetties (Herring Gull, Great Black-backed Gull, Grey Heron). None of these species will be significantly affected by the proposed development.

Summary of works at the Berth 52/53 Basin

The proposed development includes the infilling of the Berth 52/53 Basin at the eastern end of the north port. This will be followed by the construction of a new river berth with a double-tiered Ro-Ro ramp (see Chapter 4). The dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin West will be transported by barge to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53. It will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material, to allow its re-use as fill material for reclamation works identified within the Port. As part of this scheme it is proposed to fill Berth 52/53 to provide open storage space and a new river berth at the port entrance. The contaminated dredge material from the Alexander Basin West will be used for the fill material. The material will be treated and placed in Berth 52/53. This process is explained in more detail in Chapter 11 – Geology and Soils.

Impacts on birds

There are no significant inter-tidal areas within the basin occupied by Berths 52 and 53. This is a confined deep water area and does not hold any significant numbers of birds in winter. The basin will be fully contained within a new steel pile wall prior to reclamation. This will prevent any escape of fill material to the Liffey channel or to the wider areas of Dublin Bay. Thus, no significant impacts on wintering birds are predicted.

The only breeding birds present in the vicinity of Berths 52/53, are Black Guillemots which use the area mainly in spring and summer months. A maximum of four birds was recorded within this Basin in May 2013 and this represents about 5% of the total breeding population in Dublin Port. The birds breed in cavities within the existing quays and jetties. These cavities will be removed preceding the redevelopment works to prevent their use by the birds during demolition. Mitigation measures will be introduced to provide alternative nest sites in neighbouring areas of the port, in advance of the redevelopment. Black Guillemots are rarely seen foraging in the water areas of the Basin as it is unlikely that their preferred fish prey occurs here in sufficient density. The infilling of this area will not cause any significant impacts on Black Guillemot.



Summary of works associated with capital dredging of the Approach Channel

The proposed development includes dredging of the Approach Channel to Dublin Port to a level of -10m CD, extending from the North Wall Quay Extension (downstream of the East Link Bridge) to Dublin Bay Buoy. This equates to circa 5.9 million cubic metres of dredging (excluding the 0.47 million cubic metres from the Alexandra Basin West). Proposals for disposing of this material are detailed in Chapter 9 – Coastal Processes.

In order to negate any potential impact of the channel dredging on Poolbeg Marina, it is proposed to construct a surge protection/retaining wall along the edge of navigation channel adjacent to the Marina. This structure will also serve to protect vessels moored in the marina from the wash produced by long vessels (circa 340m in length) manoeuvring about the North Wall Quay Extension.

The dredging of the Approach Channel will be carried out over a period of approximately six years with the main works confined to winter months. The dredging will involve the removal of 3.2 million cubic metres of mainly fine sand in the outer channel and 2.7 million cubic metres of mainly silty material from the inner channel.

The sediment quality of the material to be dredged within the approach channel has been tested for contamination and is deemed suitable for disposal at sea. There is however an area immediately adjacent to Alexandra Basin West where low levels of contamination have been identified requiring this material to be disposed of at sea only at low tide and immediately covered by sand or gravel.

The uncontaminated material from the channel will be dredged to the required design depths by a trailer suction dredger or equivalent. The dredged material will be loaded into barges and transported directly to the licensed sea disposal site located at the entrance to Dublin Bay (subject to the granting of a Dumping at Sea Permit by the EPA).

It is envisaged that the dredging of uncontaminated material will be carried out during winter months only (October to March) to negate any potential impact on salmonid mitigation and summer bird feeding, notably terns, in the vicinity of the dredging operations.

Impacts on birds

Direct impacts of dredging

The shipping channel is used by a range of seabirds and other species throughout the year (see Table 5.1.4). The dredging works in the channel will be carried out in phases over six years. The work will be confined to winter months (October to March) and will thus not affect birds foraging during the breeding season. Maintenance dredging was carried out in the channel in 2012 and no significant changes in bird populations in the Tolka Estuary area in winter 2012/13 were recorded that could be connected with the dredging activity. All birds using Dublin Port’s shipping channel and approaches are habituated to high levels of shipping activity. A single dredging vessel, involved in the proposed capital dredging for this project, would not cause any significant additional disturbance potentially affecting wintering waterbirds and seabirds within the shipping channel.



Indirect or long-term impacts of dredging

The intertidal areas of the Tolka Estuary are an important habitat for wintering birds (see Table 5.1.2). The simulations carried out for this project have modelled the deposition of suspended sediment during the dredging process. The deposition of suspended material in the Tolka Estuary has been shown to be less than 0.002kg/m3, which equates to a deposition of less than 0.0002mm (See Chapter 9 - Coastal Processes). This will have no significant impact on the inter-tidal areas of the Tolka Estuary.

Dredging of the proposed channel to -10m CD will not significantly alter the tidal regime, wave climate or sediment transport regime in Dublin Bay outside the immediate area of the navigation channel. The deepened navigation channel is unlikely to be susceptible to rapid infilling and will have a similar stability to the existing channel. It is therefore concluded that there will be no significant impacts of the dredging on surrounding inter-tidal areas within Dublin Bay, either in the short-term or long-term. There will thus be no indirect effects on waterbirds in these locations.

A review of the impacts of capital and maintenance dredging in the Tamar estuary, in south-west England, was published by Widdows et al. (2007). This estuary is a Special Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive which requires annual maintenance dredging as well as occasional capital dredging for new installations. Maintenance dredging here involves annual removal of between 5,000 and 200,000 tonnes of dry sediment per year. During two periods of capital dredging in the Tamar, the amount of sediment dredged was between 500,000 and 700,000 tonnes per year. Annual estimates for ten species of wildfowl and waders were analysed over several decades in the Tamar Estuary. There were no significant correlations between overwintering bird numbers and dredging activity. Declines in Teal and Wigeon over 30 years were related to milder winters which changed the migratory patterns of these species.

Turbidity in the water of the Dublin Port shipping channel has the potential to increase marginally in the immediate vicinity of the dredging works (see Chapter 9). Fish-eating birds, such as Black Guillemots, Cormorants or terns, can be sensitive to increasing turbidity as they use their eyes to chase and capture their prey under water. A review of ecological effects of dumping of dredged sediments in the Netherlands was published by Essink (1999). The increase in turbidity in the Dutch coastal zone since the 1960s was considered as a possible cause of reduced breeding success of Sandwich Tern breeding in the Wadden Sea area, caused by the greater distance from the breeding colony that adult terns have to fly in order to obtain sufficient prey for their young (Essink 1999).

The large breeding colony of Common Terns within Dublin Port has been monitored closely since 1995. Breeding productivity (number of fledged young per nesting pair) between 1995 and 2002 averaged at 1.50 (range 1.20 to 1.79) (Merne 2004). In 2013 the estimated productivity for this colony was in the range 1.05 to 1.91 (median 1.48) (BirdWatch Ireland, unpublished data). This suggests that the overall productivity of the terns is relatively stable over the medium term and has not been negatively affected by dredging of the Liffey Channel in 2012. The breeding colonies in Dublin Port are principally occupied by terns from late April to August. From July to September, large flocks of migratory terns gather in Dublin Bay and roost on Sandymount Strand (Merne et al. 2008). By early October, the majority of these birds have left the bay completely. As the proposed dredging of the navigation channel will take place in winter months only, when the terns are absent, there will be no residual increase in suspended sediments from dredging by the time the terns return to the colonies in late April.



Black Guillemots, which also breed within Dublin Port, are rarely seen foraging within the Liffey channel but most frequently feed in the wider area of Dublin Bay and are seen returning to the nest sites carrying small fish. They are mainly present here in spring and summer but only small numbers are present in the channel in autumn and winter (see Table 5.1.4). Thus, they will not be significantly impacted by the dredging works which will take place in the winter months only.

It is concluded that the capital dredging of the shipping channel will have no significant impacts on birds in the channel itself or in the surrounding intertidal areas of the Tolka Estuary or other intertidal parts of Dublin Bay.

5.1.5 Overall impacts on Special Protection Areas in Dublin Bay

There are two Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in inner Dublin Bay and a further six SPAs on the wider Dublin coastline, that may have connectivity to the Dublin Port area (Section 5.1.3 above). There will be no direct overlap between the Alexandra Basin West redevelopment; infill of the Berths 52/53 Basin; or capital dredging of the Liffey channel with the SPA boundaries. Some of the Special Conservation Interests of these SPAs, occur within Dublin Port and the shipping channel (Table 5.1.5) although there is no scientific evidence linking any of the species with individual breeding colonies.

Table 5.1.5 Special Conservation interests of SPAs recorded within Alexandra Basin West or the Dublin Port Shipping Channel.

Sou

th D

ublin

Bay

an

d R

iver

Tol

ka

Est

uary

Nor

th B

ull i

slan

d

Ske

rrie

s Is

land

s

Roc

kabi

ll

Lam

bay

Isla

nd

Irela

nds

Eye

How

th H

ead

Dal

key

Isla

nd

Occ

urs

in A

lexa

ndra

B

asin

Occ

urs

in D

ublin

Por

t S

hipp

ing

Cha

nnel

Light-bellied Brent Goose ● ● ● √ √ Shelduck ● √ Teal ● √ Oystercatcher ● ● √ Black-tailed Godwit ● √ Turnstone ● ● √ Cormorant ● ● ● √ √ Shag ● ● √ Roseate Tern ● ● ● √ Common Tern ● ● ● √ Arctic Tern ● ● ● √ Black-headed Gull ● ● √ √ Lesser Black-backed Gull ● √ Herring Gull ● ● ● √ √ Kittiwake ● ● ● √ Common Guillemot ● ● √ Razorbill ● ● √



Alexandra Basin West Redevelopment

Of these special conservation interests, only the Light-bellied Brent Goose occurs in significant numbers within the Alexandra Basin West. It is concluded in Section 5.1.4 that there will be no significant impact of the proposed development on wintering Brent Geese within Alexandra Basin West as the development will be carried out in phases and agricultural products will continue to be offloaded at different berths within the port. The geese will adapt quickly to any new source of feeding. Black-headed Gulls and Herring Gulls also forage on the spilled agricultural products but these will continue to be available both during and after construction. Cormorants roost in small numbers on some of the jetties within the Basin. There are abundant alternative roost sites within the Port and these will remain available both during and after construction. None of the special conservation interests, listed in Table 5.1.6, occurs within the existing Berths 52/53 and there will be no indirect effects of the development of this area on the SPAs.

Capital dredging of Shipping Channel

The frequency of occurrence of the various Special Conservation Interests in the Shipping Channel and the type of activity of these species is outlined in Table 5.1.7. Seven of the species are infrequent and have only been recorded flying over the channel. These species will not be affected by the dredging activity. Common Tern and Arctic Tern occasionally forage in the channel in summer months but, as these are absent in winter, they will not be affected by the dredging works.

Table 5.1.7 Special Conservation Interests of SPAs and the frequency of occurrence within the Dublin Port Shipping Channel

Species Frequency Activity within the channel Light-bellied Brent Goose Infrequent Flying over the channel Shelduck Infrequent Flying over the channel Teal Infrequent Flying over the channel Oystercatcher Infrequent Flying over the channel Black-tailed Godwit Infrequent Flying over the channel Turnstone Infrequent Flying over the channel Cormorant Frequent Foraging and roosting on jetties and navigation Shag Frequent Foraging and roosting on jetties and navigation Roseate Tern Infrequent Flying over the channel Common Tern Frequent Roosting on navigation buoys Arctic Tern Frequent Roosting on navigation buoys Black-headed Gull Frequent Foraging and roosting on jetties and navigation Lesser Black-backed Gull Frequent Foraging and roosting on navigation buoys Herring Gull Frequent Foraging and roosting on navigation buoys Kittiwake Frequent Foraging Common Guillemot Frequent Foraging Razorbill Frequent Foraging

Black-headed Gulls do not breed in the Port and the large flocks that forage and roost in the Liffey channel will be unaffected by the proposed capital dredging because they mainly feed in the vicinity of the outfall from Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Works, which will not be



affected by the proposed dredging works. Three tern species and Kittiwake are present in the Port and on the shipping channel only during the summer months (April to August). As the proposed dredging of the navigation channel will take place in winter months (October to March), when these birds are absent, they will be unaffected by the proposed development. None of the other species, listed in Table 5.1.6 or 5.1.7, is likely to be affected in a significant way by the proposed development. There is no evidence that any of the seabird species present in the Shipping Channel in winter, is linked with the SPAs in the Dublin area. These birds are known to range widely outside the breeding season and many of the breeding birds from Dublin seabird colonies may have dispersed to other parts of the North Atlantic in winter (Mitchell et al. 2004).

The nearest parts of any SPA to the Liffey Channel are in the Tolka Estuary, which is largely intertidal. The likely deposition of suspended material in the Tolka Estuary has been shown to be less than 0.002kg/m3, which equates to a deposition of less than 0.0002mm. This will have no significant impact on the inter-tidal areas of the Tolka Estuary or on the Special Conservation Interests for the SPA or any of the other SPAs listed in Table 5.1.6.

As the Conservation Objectives for all SPAs are “To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special Conservation Interests”, it is concluded that there will be no significant impacts on these Natura 2000 sites, either during construction or operation of the Alexandra Basin West redevelopment.

5.1.6 Mitigation Measures

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment and Infill of Berths 52/53

Brent Geese

The Brent Geese that regularly use Alexandra Basin West in winter have adapted to feeding on spilled agricultural products. Redevelopment of the quays and jetties in the Basin will be carried out on a phased basis so that shipping will continue to use parts of the Basin at all times. As agricultural products will continue to be unloaded here, albeit in different locations, the geese will continue to be attracted to the spillages. No other mitigation measures are required for this species.

Black Guillemots

Black Guillemots readily nest in artificial sites including disused drainage pipes and other cavities in quays and jetties in both Basins. The birds generally come ashore and occupy the nest holes in October, some five months prior to egg-laying (Greenwood 1987, 1991). Young birds have generally left the nests by late August (Ferguson-Lees et al. 2011). In order to avoid disturbance to nesting birds, any existing nest holes in piers to be demolished, will be blocked or otherwise made inaccessible in the month of September preceding the development works. Prior to this, temporary artificial nest boxes (10 No.) will be provided for the birds in immediately adjacent parts of the port, for the duration of construction works. In addition, concrete nest boxes (10 No.) will be incorporated into the new quays and jetties, at appropriate locations selected at the detailed design stage, to encourage the birds to return to these areas in subsequent breeding seasons.



5.1.7 Conclusions

With full implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in section 5.1.6, there will be no significant impacts of the proposed development on either breeding birds or wintering birds within the Port or the Liffey Channel. It is concluded that there will be no significant impacts of the proposed development on the Conservation Objectives of the Special Protection Areas in Dublin Bay or neighbouring coastlines.



5.2 MARINE MAMMALS


This Section details the potential risks to marine mammals and recommendations for mitigation measures related to the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR). It is based on a site visit, information from published and unpublished literature and communication with local relevant authorities. This Section is based on information on proposed development which involves demolition works, piling, dredging and dumping of dredge spoil.

5.2.2 Legislation pertaining to marine mammals in Irish Waters

Marine mammals are protected by national legislation and by a number of international regulations which the Republic of Ireland is a signatory. The main legislation that affords protection to marine mammals in Irish waters is the Wildlife Act (1976) amendment Act (2000), which prohibits wilful interference to wild mammals and disturbance of resting and breeding sites.

All cetacean (whales, dolphins and porpoises) species occurring in European waters are afforded protection under the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The current transposition of this legislation in Ireland is the EC ‘Birds and Natural Habitats’ Regulations (2011). All cetaceans are included in Annex IV of this Directive as species ‘in need of strict protection’. Additionally the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) are designated Annex II species (‘those animals of community interest, whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation’). Ireland’s two pinniped (seals) species, the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), are also designated Annex II species under the EC Habitats Directive.

The Republic of Ireland is also signatory to conservation orientated agreements under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (1983); the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the northeast Atlantic (1992); and the Berne Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979).

In light of the legislation and conservation status of marine mammals, careful assessment and consideration must be given prior to and during all anthropogenic activity with potential for effects on these species and their habitat.

Lambay Island in Co. Dublin is designated as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) with the grey seal listed a species of qualifying interest and the harbour seal has also recently been added as a qualifying feature.

Rockabill to Dalkey Island was designated as a cSAC in 2012. Harbour porpoise is listed as a qualifying interest for this site. The proposed capital dredging scheme extends into the new Rockabill to Dalkey cSAC. The licensed offshore disposal site for dredge spoil, located to the west of the Burford Bank, also lies within the cSAC.

An Appropriate Assessment has been carried out for the proposed project in accordance with Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive (see Habitats Directive Assessment - Natura Impact Statement under separate cover).



5.2.3 Marine mammals in area

It is necessary to determine what marine mammals use the waters in the vicinity of the proposed works, and likely extended zone of influence in order to estimate the likely significance of any impacts resulting from the proposed development.

Cetaceans

Based on species’ ecology and sighting records cetacean species likely to use the area of Dublin Bay and the dump area at Burford bank include harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus) and common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) (Evans, 1992, Berrow et al., 2001; 2008; Ingram, 2000; Ingram et al., 2001 and 2003; Rogan et al., 2001; Ó Cadhla et al., 2004; O Brien et al., 2009; IWDG, 2013).

An overview and literature review for each cetacean species occurring within and likely to occur within the study area is set out below.

Harbour Porpoise

Sightings of Europe’s smallest cetacean species, the harbour porpoise, have been relatively common off all coasts of Ireland and in the Irish Sea (Northridge et al., 1995; Hammond et al., 1995; Pollack et al., 1997; Berrow et al., 2001; Ó Cadhla et al., 2004; Anderwald et al., 2011). The small size of harbour porpoises and their erratic surfacing behaviour can make them difficult to detect. There are however relatively frequent sightings of the species within Dublin Bay, including the dredge disposal site and shipping channel (IWDG, 2013). Surveys of harbour porpoise, carried out at specific sites around the Irish coast, identified Dublin Bay as an important area for the species with high densities in Dublin Bay of 1.19 per km2 reported, representing one of the highest densities of the species recorded in Ireland to date (Berrow et al., 2008). Surveys of cetaceans in the waters outside of Dublin Bay, in the western Irish Sea, indicated that harbour porpoise were by far the most abundant species in the area with relative abundance of harbour porpoise estimated at 0.55 porpoise per km2 (Berrow et al., 2011). Sighting rates of harbour porpoise, and thus local densities, were notably higher adjacent to Rockabill and Lambay Islands. This was consistent with Berrow et al. (2008) who recorded high densities during smaller scale harbour porpoise surveys in the same area. This suggests that this could be a good habitat for harbour porpoises. The Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC is designated for the conservation and protection of this species.

Harbour porpoises produce high-frequency sounds used for echolocation and communication, but do not make frequency-modulated whistles typical of many delphinids. The high frequency sounds are comprised entirely of click trains, produced in two narrow band frequency components, one between 1-20 kHz and the other between 120-160 kHz (peaking around 125-130 kHz) (Goodson et al., 1995). Maximum source level is estimated at between 149 and 177 dB re 1µPa at 1 m (Akamatsu et al., 1992).

Harbour porpoises are very sensitive to vessel noise and activity and are unlikely to approach areas of high activity (Polacheck & Thorpe, 1990). However it is the cetacean species most likely to be affected by the proposed works considering the importance of the area for harbour porpoise. Mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 will minimize potential impacts of the proposed works on this species.



Bottlenose Dolphin

A coastal species of cetacean commonly sighted in western Irish waters (Evans, 1992, Pollock et al., 1997) bottlenose dolphins are numerous on the south and west coasts (Ingram and Rogan, 2003; Ingram et al., 2001, 2003). There are resident communities in the waters of the outer Shannon estuary (Ingram, 2000; Ingram and Rogan, 2003) and a transient population recorded off all Irish coasts (O Brien et al., 2009). Bottlenose dolphins have been occasionally recorded in Dublin Bay (IWDG 2013). However, the area is not significant at national level for bottlenose dolphins and the dolphins sighted there are likely to be part of a transient population. Bottlenose dolphins are a wide-ranging species and individuals commonly travel between coastal regions especially during the summer months (Ingram et al., 2003).

The bottlenose dolphin makes a wide range of vocalisations. Echolocation clicks (used for orientation and foraging) are composed of intense short duration broadband clicks (40-130 kHz) (Au, 1993). Burst pulse vocalisations may have a variety of social functions (0.2-16 kHz). Whistles are pure tone frequency modulated calls ranging from 2-20 kHz. Clicks and whistle vocalisations can be made simultaneously.

Bottlenose dolphins may be attracted to vessel activity, making them potentially vulnerable to physical harm from industrial activities, including dredging. Mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 will minimize potential impacts of the proposed works on this species.

Minke Whale

The most common species of baleen whale found around Irish coasts, the minke whale is frequently recorded around all parts of the west coast (Pollock et al., 1997, Berrow et al., 2002; Ó Cadhla et al., 2004). Research conducted in UK waters suggest that the species moves southwards to inshore Atlantic Margin waters in spring and summer, remaining until late autumn following which numbers decline (Pollack et al., 2000; Northridge et al., 1995). The minke whale has been sighted in near inshore waters around Ireland and of all whale species that use Irish waters is the species with the most near-shore distribution, and therefore potentially the most vulnerable to anthropogenic noise resulting from development in the marine environment. Vocalisations of minke whales involve intense, low frequency, broadband (0.5-1 kHz bandwidth) and harmonic down-sweeps with maximum source level of 165 dB re 1 re 1µPa at 1 m (Edds, 1988).

Minke whales have been sighted in outer Dublin Bay (IWDG, 2013) and it is possible they occasionally use the proposed dumping area west of the Burford Bank. There were six sightings of individual minke whales off the Dublin Coast during cetacean surveys of the north Irish Sea in 2011, with most sightings east of Rockabill and Lambay Island off north County Dublin (Berrow et al., 2011). Mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 will minimize potential impacts of the proposed works if there is occasional use of the area by this species.

Common Dolphin

Although a mainly oceanic species, common dolphins have been frequently observed in large schools around the coasts of Ireland (Pollock et al., 1997; Gordon et al., 2000) and it is the most commonly stranded cetacean around the Irish coast (Berrow & Rogan, 1997). The mobile schools of common dolphins seen in coastal waters tend to be foraging for shoaling fish species.



Vocalisations of common dolphins vary from whistles of 1-50 kHz frequency (mainly 6-12 kHz, max. source level 172dB re 1µPa at 1 m) to echolocation clicks which may reach 150 kHz (max. source levels 170 dB re 1µPa at 1 m) (Evans, 1973; Moore & Ridgway, 1995). Clicks and whistles may be given simultaneously.

Common dolphins are attracted to vessels and are easily sighted and identified. It is considered unlikely that the proposed works within Dublin Port will impact upon common dolphins in the area as they do not frequent the waters of inner Dublin Bay; however it is possible they will occasionally use the area of the outer bay, where the proposed dumping of dredged material will take place, west of the Burford Bank. Mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 will minimize potential impacts of the proposed works on this species.

Risso’s Dolphin

In Ireland Risso’s dophin have generally been recorded close to the coast with highest numbers of sightings between August and February (Pollack et al., 1997; 2000). A large and robust species, Risso’s dolphins are slow moving and often seen in small schools (Berrow et al., 2002). Risso’s dolphins will not usually approach vessels but are readily recognised by their distinctive colouration patterns and large size.

Vocalisations include a variety of clicks, whistles, and pulsed calls. Whistles are rarely heard, but range over 2.5-20 kHz, maximum source level of 170 dB re re 1µPa at 1 m. Clicks have peak frequency at 65 kHz and durations of 40-100 secs (Au, 1993).

It is considered unlikely that the proposed works will impact upon this species as there are no records of this species in Dublin Bay, however mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 will minimize potential impacts of the proposed works if there is occasional use of the area by this species.

Pinnipeds

Based on species’ ecology and sighting records, seal species likely to use Dublin Bay and the area of the proposed dredge spoil disposal site include harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and grey seal (Halichoerus grypus). An overview and literature review for both seal species occurring within, or likely to occur within, the study area is set out below.

Harbour seal

Harbour seals (also known as “common seals”) have established themselves at terrestrial colonies (or haul-outs) along all coastlines of Ireland, which they leave when foraging or moving between areas and to which they return to rest ashore, rear young and engage in social activity. These haul-out groups of harbour seals have tended historically to be found among inshore bays and islands, coves and estuaries (Lockley, 1966; Summers et al., 1980), particularly around the hours of lowest tide. Harbour seals in Ireland use terrestrial sites mainly on the western seaboard, with highest numbers in NW and SW Ireland (Cronin et al., 2008).

The closest recorded haul-out site of harbour seals to Dublin Bay is Lambay Island where approximately 30 harbour seals were observed during national census in 2003 (Cronin et al., 2004), and 2012 (Duck & Morris, 2013). Smaller haul-out groups were also observed at Skerries Island (3 individuals) and further north at Clogher Head (8 individuals) and Dundalk harbour (eighteen individuals) (Cronin et al., 2004). Larger haul-out groups of harbour seals



occur further north in Carlingford Lough. An aerial census of harbour seals in Carlingford Lough during 2011 recorded a total of 255 harbour seals at haul-out sites within the Lough (SMRU, unpublished). The number of harbour seals counted during surveys at terrestrial sites generally represents 60-70% of the seals using the area, as some will be at sea, therefore using a correction factor on the haul-out count data over 400 harbour seals could potentially use Carlingford Lough.

Recent findings from tagging harbour seals in SW Ireland suggest that harbour seals are local foragers, generally staying within 20km of their haul-out sites (Cronin et al., 2008); however, studies in the UK have shown that harbour seals travel further distances from haul out sites (over 100km), therefore it is possible that harbour seals from sites in Carlingford Lough use the waters of Dublin Bay and very likely that harbour seals from haul-out sites on Lambay and Skerries and Dundalk harbour use Dublin Bay.

Harbour seals are most vulnerable at their terrestrial haul-out sites during breeding and moulting periods. These events occur between June and September in Ireland.

In addition to the identified terrestrial sites, the surrounding waters surrounding haulout sites are likely to be critical habitat for harbour seals, for feeding and/or for navigation to more offshore foraging areas. Results from a study by the author on the haul-out behaviour of harbour seals in southwest Ireland in recent years suggests that harbour seals spend up to 80% of their time at sea (Cronin, 2007; Cronin et al., 2008). Similar behaviour patterns have been seen in studies of harbour seals in Scotland (Sharples, SMRU pers comm, Thompson & Miller, 1990). Unlike grey seals, harbour seal adults continue to forage during the breeding season (Bonnes et al., 1994). In addition the mating strategy is based on males diving and calling at aquatic display sites (Van Parijs et al., 1997, 2000, Hayes et al., 2004). Disturbance from anthropogenic noise during this period could potentially affect mating success. The hearing range of harbour and grey seals extends over wide frequencies, including the ultrasonic spectrum. The area of best hearing is between 8 and 25 kHz, with acute hearing also at lower frequencies (Møhl 1968; Terhune & Turnbull 1995). There is potential for harbour seals using the waters in the vicinity of Dublin Bay to be at risk to potentially detrimental impacts of the proposed piling, dredging and disposal of dredge spoil. Mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 will minimize potential impacts of the proposed works.

Grey seal

Grey seals are distributed throughout Irish coastal waters and commonly seen hauled out on more exposed shores than the harbour seal (Kiely, 1998). The large colonies of grey seals on the Irish coastline are predominantly on the western seaboard on the northwest and southwest coasts and islands; although relatively large numbers of grey seals are also found in southeast Ireland e.g. Wexford harbour, Saltee Islands (O Cadhla et al., 2007).

A national census of the grey seal population in 2005 identified grey seal breeding sites in Co. Dublin at Lambay Island, Dalkey Island, Irelands Eye and St. Patricks Island (Ó Cadhla et al., 2007). Pup counts were small at these sites (less than 3); apart from Lambay where 49 pups were counted. Further surveys conducted in 2009 recorded 77 pups on Lambay Island and Ireland’s Eye (Ó Cadhla et al. 2013). These sites are also important to grey seals during the annual moult (Jan-April) in particular St. Patricks Island and Lambay Island, where 137 and 110 grey seals respectively were observed during a moult census in 2007 (O Cadhla & Strong, 2007). A group of 36 grey seals were also observed on Dalkey Island during the 2007 census and 26 grey seals on Rockabill. Four grey seals were sighted in Dublin Bay during aerial surveys as part of a harbour seal population survey in August/September 2012, with a further



62 observed on Lambay Island at this time (Duck & Morris 2013). This suggests over 300 grey seals use the islands in Co. Dublin, particularly for moulting. Grey seals are frequently seen in the waters of Dublin Bay at Dun Laoghaire and Howth harbour (and at Howth Harbour, they have been known to take fish offcuts), Bull Island and Sandycove. Seals have also been recorded hauled out on the beach at Bull Island. Larger colonies of grey seals occur further south in Wexford Harbour at Raven Point, where up to 450 grey seals haul-out during the annual moult period (pers. ob.). The Saltee Islands in Co. Wexford are also an important breeding and moulting site for grey seals.

Grey seals are also most vulnerable at their terrestrial haul-out sites during breeding and moulting periods. These events occur between September and March in Ireland. The waters surrounding terrestrial haulout sites are likely to be a critical habitat for grey seals, for feeding and/or for navigation to more offshore foraging areas. Grey seal have a wider offshore foraging distribution than harbour seals and therefore grey seals from haul-out sites in Co. Dublin as well as from the large breeding and moult colonies on the coast and islands of Co. Wexford will potentially use the waters of Dublin Bay for foraging and/or navigation. They will therefore be at risk to potentially detrimental impacts of the proposed piling, dredging and dumping. Mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 will minimize potential impacts of the proposed works.

5.2.4 Site Visit

A visit to Dublin Bay and site of the proposed works was made by a qualified marine biologist (M. Cronin) on 27th and 28th July 2013.

Observation Methods

The waters in Dublin Bay were surveyed from two vantage points on the north shore of the harbour (Figure 5.2.1) using a telescope (equipped with a 30x eyepiece) mounted on a tripod and 10 x 50 Leica binoculars for all marine mammals at sea between 14.00 and 18.00 on 27th July 2013 (two hours either side of high tide). The two vantage points (A & B) provided visibility of Dublin Bay, as well as the waters surrounding the bay (Plate 5.2.1). The conditions on 27th July were favourable for visual surveillance, with a Beaufort sea-state of 2-3 and a light South Easterly breeze. Observations of marine mammals at sea are affected by prevailing sea conditions with a decline in sighting probability in Beaufort sea-states of three or higher.

The shorelines and waters of Dublin Bay (Plate 5.2.2) were surveyed using 10 x 50 Leica binoculars for all marine mammals ashore during the low water period between 08.00 and 12.00 (two hours either side of low water) on 28th July. The low water period was surveyed in order to maximise the likelihood of observing seals hauled out on the shoreline. Supplementary data on marine mammal presence was collected during bird surveys in the area.

Results

• One seal (unidentified species) was observed approximately 300m southeast of North Bull Island on 27th July at 17.35

• Two grey seals were observed approximately 100m from shore at Dun Laoghaire on 28th July at 10.30



• While no cetaceans were observed during the dedicated visual observations, this does not indicate that the area is not visited by dolphins or porpoises particularly given the transient nature of cetacean movement patterns.

• Supplementary visual observations by consultants undertaking visual surveys for birds recorded three harbour porpoise at the outer channel near the Dublin Bay Buoy on 25th June, and three further harbour porpoise between North Bull Light and Buoy 3 at the north side of the outer channel on 26th August 2013.

Figure 5.2.1 Location of observation points A & B for marine mammal survey, Dublin Bay

A B



Plate 5.2.1 Waters of outer Dublin Bay scanned for marine mammals at High Tide

Plate 5.2.2 Shore of Dublin Bay scanned for marine mammals



5.2.5 Potential impacts of the proposed works on marine mammals and the identification of sensitive receptors

Studies on the responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic noise have identified the following factors as influencing the degree of response given by animals (Anguilar et al., 2004):

(i) source intensity levels;

(ii) degree of background noise;

(iii) distance to source;

(iv) species involved;

(v) behavioural state and season;

(vi) prior degree of exposure;

(vii) age, sex ; and

(viii) time of day.

The peak pressure, duration and the frequency spectrum of anthropogenic sound are important factors relating to potential biological impacts. Several studies have examined the direct and indirect impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals, and in general have indicated that source levels of 180-200dB P-P re 1 μPa are sufficient to induce behavioural effects on marine mammals within a few kilometres from the sound source (Gausland, 2000). Biological damage from high-level sound may be categorized as either direct injuries (lethal, sub-lethal or non-lethal) or indirect effects (changes in behaviour or distribution patterns).

Playback experiments of drilling sounds in the presence of cetaceans have shown avoidance reactions and reduction of calling rates by various baleen whale species (Richardson et al., 1995). Phocid seals are more sensitive than small odontocetes to noise of low frequency and are therefore potentially more susceptible to disturbance from low frequency anthropogenic noise (Thompson et al., 1998). Consequently, both harbour seal and grey seal will be susceptible to disturbance from underwater anthropogenic noise associated with demolition works when at sea.

Pile driving associated with the proposed development is considered to be a potentially detrimental activity to marine mammals because it produces a very high source level and broad bandwidth pulse, which is biased towards the lower frequencies. Sound produced during pile-driving propagates through the air into water, through the water column and, to a lesser degree, through the sediment and from there back into the water column (Thompson et al., 2006). Sound pressure levels in impact pile-driving are dependent on the length and the diameter of the pile and the impact energy (Nedwell et al., 2003) as well as the seabed conditions or substrate hardness. The response thresholds of cetaceans are usually the lowest for pulsed sounds and pile driving is one of the loudest sources of this type of noise (Richardson & Wursig, 1996). Peak source levels of 228 dB re 1 μPa @ 1m have been estimated for 1.5m diameter jacket-piles (ITAP 2005). The piles to be used in the development in Dublin Port are circa 1.6m diameter.



Extended exposure to high levels of continuous noise and/or impulsive sounds with high rise times can lead to injuries of the hearing structures in cetaceans and pinnipeds resulting in permanent or temporary hearing loss and other injuries (Richardson et al., 1995).

Source levels of pile-driving noise are very similar to tactical sonar, which has been linked to noise-related injuries (Evans & Miller, 2004). However piling noise differs in duration, frequency content, duty cycle and directionality, and it is therefore difficult to assess their potential for causing severe injury in cetaceans and pinnipeds based on current evidence. Animals close to the source, exposed to a sudden onset of pile-driving noise might be injured (Thomsen et al., 2006). Temporary threshold shift (TTS), a temporal elevation of the hearing threshold due to noise exposure, could be induced by exposure to pile-driving noise. In addition to potentially injuring marine mammals, pile driving and industrial noise can adversely impact behaviour, communication and breeding with effects from some operations detected at distances of up to 20km for harbour porpoises and harbour seals (Thomsen et al., 2006).

Behavioural modifications including the haulout behaviour of pinnipeds (Teilmann et al., 2006) and echolocation in harbour porpoise (Tougaard et al., 2003) have also been observed during pile driving activities. The literature contains some reference values for biological thresholds for onset of Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS), Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and behavioural changes integrated over a duration of 1 second, as well as accumulation of sound energy over a continuous 24-hour period (Southall et al., 2007; Lucke et al., 2009). These thresholds are listed in Table 5.3.1 below. Sound propagation in the marine environment is context specific and largely dependent on water depth, bathymetry, sediment type, oceanographic conditions and ambient noise levels. Furthermore, behavioural responses depend on many factors including the properties of the sound source, species, age, condition, sex, season, social state and existing behaviour (Richardson et al. 1995). For these reasons, obtaining accurate and reliable predictions of the zone of PTS, TTS and behavioural responses is complex, and involves the interplay of a large number of variables. Available evidence based on examples obtained from published literature are mostly site specific and hence should be regarded as merely indicative in the context of the proposed works.

Mitigation measures are proposed in Section 5.2.9 to reliably quantify the zone of responsiveness associated with the proposed programme of piling activities associated with the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment.



Table 5.2.1 Thresholds for onset of PTS, TTS and behavioural response to impulsive anthropogenic noise (following Southall et al., 2007 and Lucke et al. 2009)

Species Approx.

frequency range of sensitivity

Sound Exposure Level (dB ref 1μPa2s)

Behaviour Disturbance

Threshold (BDT)

Temporary Threshold Shift

(TTS)

Permanent Threshold Shift

(PTS)

1 second

24 hours

1 second

24 hours

1 second

24 hours

Harbour porpoise 0,200-180kHz 145(*) 162 164(*) 181 198(#) 215(#)

Dolphin spp 0,150-160kHz ? ? 183(#) 195 198(#) 215(#)

Harbour/ grey seal

0,075-75kHz ? ? 171(#) 188 186(#) 203

(#) Southall et al. (2007)

(*) Lucke et al. (2009)

The most likely impact of the proposed dredging and infilling in the harbour, and disposal of dredge spoil in the outer bay will be through sound disturbance and local habitat modification. Dredging activity results in significant short to medium term modification to the biological environment. Destruction of benthic communities through substrate removal and smothering of benthic communities through plumes and dumping of dredge spoil will displace many species of invertebrate and fish, and may subsequently affect the food chain and impact on marine predators at a local scale. However, the effects of substrate removal will be determined by the extent of dredging activity and the value (in terms of foraging or conservation) of the existing habitat. Grey seals and cetacean species are highly mobile, with ranges that are likely to overlap with the dredging and dumping works. In addition to the physical act of sediment removal, dredging activities will result in potential disturbance to marine mammals through increases in vessel activity and increase local ambient marine noise levels.

There are limited studies describing dredging noise from North America and the UK, covering a variety of dredger types. The sparse data available indicate that vibration levels close to the source are relatively small and that dredging is not as noisy as seismic surveys, pile driving and sonar; but it is louder than most shipping, operating offshore wind turbines and drilling. Thomsen et al. (2009) suggest it should be viewed, therefore, as a medium impact activity and because of its continual nature, which might last for extended periods, the potential adverse effects, especially in areas of high ecological sensitivity should not be overlooked.

Noise associated with dredging is predominantly of low frequency, below 1 kHz; estimated source sound pressure levels range between 168 and 186 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. In most cases



the noise is continuous in nature. Audibility of dredging noise is dependent on many factors (hearing sensitivity of the species in question, prevalent ambient noise, transmission loss etc). Since dredging noise is predominantly of low frequency, it would potentially affect low frequency cetaceans such as minke whales to a greater extent than mid or high frequency cetaceans. The harbour porpoise is a potential exception, as it has a relatively high sensitivity across most frequencies. There is also a potential issue with seals as both harbour and grey seals have relatively good underwater hearing at frequencies below 1 kHz (Thomsen et al., 2009).

Studies have shown that in shallow water, which would also characterise the situation at most dredging sites, received sound pressure levels were above 140 dB re 1 μPa, respectively at 1 km distance from the source; a value that is probably detectable for most marine mammals sensitive to sound pressure, depending on hearing abilities and local ambient noise conditions. Even at 10 km distance, sound pressure levels were well above 120 dB re μPa, a value which might exceed ambient noise levels in several areas (Thomsen et al., 2009).

Most of the information on diet in porpoises comes from an examination of the stomach contents of stranded animals or animals taken in fisheries by-catch. It has been suggested that porpoise are opportunistic feeders, altering their diet in response to prey availability at any given time and while this behaviour is difficult to prove there is some, at least weak, evidence to support it (Santos and Pierce 2003). Both porpoises and seals feed on pelagic, demersal and benthic species although they are believed to feed mainly close to or on the seabed.

Dredging can remove large amounts of seafloor sediment along with associated benthic communities, with potential loss of foraging opportunities for marine mammals. The dredging of the shipping channel is likely to reduce the feeding quality for a range of benthic and demersal fish species for at least one season after the dredging, which in turn may reduce the density of fish feeding in the affected areas. However, it won’t eliminate fish from the site as they were present there in 2013 despite channel dredging in 2012. Furthermore, only about 20% of the channel is earmarked to be dredged each year over the lifetime of the project, thereby restricting the footprint of the impact each year. It is unlikely, that porpoises, which tend to avoid areas of busy port traffic, feed much in the inner part of the channel, so that dredging in these areas is less likely to impact the species. Indeed a survey of the distribution of the species based on sightings from a boat (Berrow, 2008) found that porpoises were almost absent from the inner and middle part of Dublin Bay.

The dumping of dredged material of fine sand and silt has the potential to affect water quality and create a plume effect which will travel according to local water currents. The main tidal currents in the area of the Burford Bank are in a north-south direction, away from the inter-tidal areas of Dublin Bay, with fine sediment particles being transported northwards before settling out in the northern part of the Irish Sea (Anon 2013). This may have a temporary impact on marine mammals’ visibility in the immediate vicinity of the vessel and dump site. Dumping is likely to have a similar impact to dredging on fish feeding within and immediately adjacent to the dredge spoil dumpsite as noted for the dredge channel above, i.e. a reduction in feeding density of fish due to suppression of macroinvertebrate food density following each six months of spoil disposal. Unlike much of the dredged channel which may not be the site of foraging by porpoises, or at least be used to a minor degree, the species are recorded in the general area of the dumpsite (Berrow, 2008), although not in the same intensity as the waters around Howth peninsula. If we consider the fact that the dumpsite has been utilised on a continual basis for many decades and is therefore likely experience a regular, periodic suppression of benthic fish production, then it is reasonable to suggest that the area is unlikely to be a critical feeding area for porpoises. This is further supported when it is considered that the waters adjoining the site to the north, east and south are important nursery grounds for several of



porpoises’ most important prey species (i.e. whiting, cod and herring). For these reasons, it is expected that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the local population and any displacement of marine mammals resulting from impacts on available prey are unlikely.

To summarise, the potential effects of demolition works, piling, dredging and disposal of dredge spoil on marine mammals include;

1. Physical injury or death of individuals resulting from collisions with operator vessels.

2. Physical injury or death of individuals resulting from close-range exposure to pile-driving noise.

3. Chronic hearing damage or disturbance/displacement as a result of piling or dredging noise.

4. Consumption of contaminated prey items resulting from contaminants entering the food chain (this is only a problem where contaminated substrates are disturbed).

5. Temporary impact on marine mammals’ visibility should they intersect the sediment plume during the dumping of dredged material.

6. Changes in prey availability due to local changes in benthic ecology caused by accumulation of dredge spoil on the seabed.

The likelihood and scale of each of these effects can be estimated and appropriate precautionary mitigation measures can be employed to reduce the estimated effects.

5.2.6 Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed works on Pinnipeds

The noise associated with the implementation of the ABR Project represents a source of acoustic degradation in the marine environment. The proposed development and dredging of the channel within the harbour and bay are unlikely to cause detectable impacts on seals at the population level. However, sightings by the author (M. Cronin) and local reports show that seals enter the harbour area, and there is a possibility that impacts may occur on individual grey or harbour seals entering the works zone. The numbers of seals in the adjacent coastal areas represent a small fraction of the population, both on the east coast of Ireland, and at a national level.

There are no known terrestrial sites for grey or harbour seals in the immediate proximity of the proposed works and therefore there is no considered threat of physical disturbance to harbour seals at the haul-out sites by the proposed works. However the waters of Dublin Bay are likely to be important habitat for grey seals, for feeding and/or for navigation to more offshore foraging areas. Risks to these animals will be small and with a degree of vigilance from operators, collisions between seals and dredging vessels as well as excessive disturbance will be avoided. Strict mitigation measures therefore are recommended (see Section 5.2.9).

Rock-breaking and piling associated with the proposed demolition and construction of quay walls is considered to be a potentially detrimental activity to marine mammals because it produces a very high source level and broad bandwidth sound. Extended exposure to impulsive sounds with high rise times can lead to injuries of the hearing structures in pinnipeds



resulting in permanent hearing loss and other injuries (Richardson et al., 1995). Animals close to the source, exposed to a sudden onset of pile-driving noise might be injured (Thomsen et al., 2006). Temporary threshold shift (TTS), a temporal elevation of the hearing threshold due to noise exposure, could be induced by exposure to pile-driving noise. Thomsen et al (2006), using a model impact pile-driving broadband sound pressure level of 229dBrms re 1 µPa at 1m, based on 1.5m diameter piles and scaled up by 10dB for larger diameter piles, estimated the resulting TTS-zone for pinnipeds as 400m. In this regard, it is unlikely that piling will result in significant PTS and TTS effects on seals in the area if appropriate mitigation is carried out. However, pile driving and industrial noise can also impact behaviour, communication and breeding. Pile driving in the western Baltic has been shown to effect the haul-out behaviour of harbour seals up to 10km from the construction site, however the effect was of short duration and overall number of seals remained the same during the whole construction phase (Edren et al., 2004). The potential impact of the proposed works on the haul-out behaviour of seals and important annual events such as breeding and moulting is negligible as there are no significant seal haul-out sites within 10km of the proposed works. The radius of the zone of behavioural responses to pile-driving noise has been provisionally defined as up to at least 20km for harbour seals (Thomsen et al., 2006), which overlaps with observations of seals in Dublin Bay, although given the uncertainties in defining responses, it is impossible to quantify the significance at the local population level.

Noise levels from vessels or from the dredging process are highly unlikely to cause hearing damage to exposed seals provided they have the opportunity to leave the affected works area. As the received sound pressure levels can be 140 dB re 1 μPa at 1 km distance from the source, a value that is detectable for seals, and as the area is of ecological importance, appropriate mitigation measures are proposed to minimise acoustic disturbance to seals (see Section 5.2.9).

Some of the dredge material within the Liffey Channel has been identified as being slight/moderately contaminated. Heavily contaminated dredge material identified within the port facility will be dredged using curtain dredging, treated, and used as infill during construction works rather than being transported to the dump site. Therefore any contamination outside of the works area is likely to be extremely limited.

Sediment plumes may present habitat disturbance to local seals foraging in the area. The dredging and dumping of material, particularly of fine sand and silt, will likely affect water quality and create a plume effect which will travel according to local water currents. This may have a temporary impact on marine mammals’ visibility, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the vessel, particularly as seals are curious and will often approach vessels. However this effect will be temporary and dredged material will be transported to the dump site on Burford Bank. The dump site is in an open body of water approximately six nautical miles from Alexandra Basin West and two nautical miles outside Dublin Bay in about 20m water depth. The main tidal currents in the area of the Burford Bank are in a north-south direction, away from the inter-tidal areas of Dublin Bay, and the dumping of dredged material is unlikely to cause any adverse effects on seals in the area. The changes to the benthos in this region will most likely affect prey availability to seals in the area. Small shoaling fish that occur regularly in the diet of seals are likely to move away from the disposal area during operations. However, the disposal site has been used for dredge spoil disposal for many decades, with the benthos and demersal fish species subject to periodic smothering, and the dump site is not a known ‘hotspot’ for seal foraging. Therefore, any displacement resulting from impacts on available prey are unlikely and temporary, with fish returning to the area at the completion of dumping activity. Mitigation measures are set out in section 5.2.9 to minimise any potential impact of dredging and dumping on individual seals.



5.2.7 Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed works on Cetaceans

The noise associated with the port developments proposed as part of the ABR Project is a source of acoustic degradation in the marine environment. The proposed development and dredging of the channel within the harbour and bay are unlikely to cause detectable impacts on cetaceans at the population level. However the Dublin Bay is an important area for harbour porpoise. The noise levels from dredging are unlikely to cause hearing damage to exposed cetaceans provided they do not approach the immediate vicinity of operations and have the opportunity to leave the affected area. However, recent investigation by Diederichs et al. (2010) showed a 600m zone of effect of sand extraction on harbour porpoises, with it taking three times longer before a porpoise was recorded following sand extraction than during times without sand extraction. After the ship left the area, porpoises were detected at the usual rate. As the received sound pressure levels from dredging can exceed 140 dB re 1 μPa at 1 km distance from the source, a value that is detectable for most cetaceans (in particular the auditory range of harbour porpoise and minke whale) and as this is likely to extend to the cSAC, appropriate mitigation measures to minimise acoustic disturbance to cetaceans are set out in Section 5.2.9.

Piling and demolition works associated with the construction activity is considered to be a potentially detrimental activity to cetaceans because it produces a very high source level and broad bandwidth sound. The response thresholds of cetaceans are usually the lowest for pulsed sounds and pile driving is one of the loudest sources of this type of noise (Richardson & Wursig, 1996). Extended exposure to impulsive sounds with high rise times can lead to injuries of the hearing structures in cetaceans resulting in permanent hearing loss and other injuries (Richardson et al., 1995). Animals close to the source, exposed to a sudden onset of pile-driving noise (in this case piling of 1.6m diameter piles and sheet piles) might be injured as injury is a concern when the sound pressure level exceeds 180dBrms re 1 µPa at 1m for cetaceans (Thomsen et al., 2006). Temporary threshold shift (TTS), a temporal elevation of the hearing threshold due to noise exposure, could be induced by exposure to pile-driving noise. Applying a broadband sound pressure level of 229dBrms re 1 µPa at 1m scaled up by 10dB for larger diameter piles, Thomsen et al., (2006) estimated the resulting TTS-zone for harbour porpoise as 1.8km. Since the cSAC for harbour porpoise is outside this range, the likelihood of population-level impacts from TTS is considered insignificant, and effects on individual cetaceans entering the works area will be insignificant if appropriate mitigation measures are carried out. However, pile driving and industrial noise can adversely impact behaviour, communication and breeding. Thomsen et al., (2006) have provisionally defined a radius for the zone of behavioural response to pile-driving noise as up to at least 20km for harbour porpoises. At 9kHz this noise is capable of masking strong dolphin vocalizations within 10-15km and weak vocalizations up to approximately 40km; behavioural modifications have been observed in bottlenose dolphins in response to noise produced by pile driving (David, 2006), and the abundance of echolocating harbour porpoise was found to decrease during pile driving activities in Denmark within 15 km of the construction site (Tougaard et al., 2003). However it remained inconclusive if the abundance changes were directly attributable to the construction activities or were related to overall temporal variation in abundance. More recent data from the field indicate that porpoise would react to pile driving at received sound exposure levels of approximately 140 dB re µPa2s. Source levels of broadband sheet piling (smaller piles) can be compared to the original ITAP (2005) values (206 dB re µPa2·s), and applying a reasonable transmission loss of 15 or 20 log (r), we would expect the sound to be reduced to 140 dB SEL at a distance of between approximately 2 to 25 km, although this represents only a rough estimate and will be very site and context specific (Thomsen, pers comm). These examples demonstrate the potential for impacts at a scale that overlaps with the cSAC. Considering the potential for indirect impacts of pile driving and industrial noise on cetaceans, in particular harbour porpoise, appropriate mitigation measures to minimise acoustic disturbance to cetaceans are set out in Section 5.3.9. There is potential for



behavioural effects from piling to extend into the cSAC. Although behavioural responses to construction noise are considered to be temporary, with either habituation to the noise source, or normal behaviour resuming following cessation of the noise-generating activity, planned works involve piling throughout the year for a period exceeding five years. Behavioural responses depend on many factors including the properties of the sound source, species, age, condition, sex, season, social state and existing behaviour (Richardson et al. 1995), all of which complicate the task of determining the nature and significance of behavioural responses. It is therefore recommended that a precautionary approach be adopted with establishment of a monitoring programme to determine any effects on harbour porpoise within the cSAC.

It is most likely that any effects of the proposed dredging work in Dublin Port and Dublin Bay on cetaceans will be minimal provided correct management and communication procedures are followed. Some of the dredge material within the Liffey Channel has been identified as being slight/moderately contaminated. Heavily contaminated dredge material identified within the port facility will be dredged using curtain dredging, treated, and used as infill during construction works rather than being transported to the dump site. Therefore any contamination outside of the works area is likely to be extremely limited.

Sediment plumes may present habitat disturbance to local cetaceans foraging in the area. The dredging and dumping of material, particularly of fine sand and silt, will likely effect water quality and create a plume effect which will travel according to local water currents. This may have a temporary impact on marine mammals’ visibility, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the vessel. As with seals, the dredged area is not considered (or known to be) an important cetacean foraging area and therefore any displacement resulting from impacts on available prey are unlikely and not considered significant.

The dredge spoil disposal site to the west of the Burford Bank overlaps with the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC with harbour porpoise listed as a qualifying interest. The main tidal currents in the area of the Burford Bank are in a north-south direction, away from the intertidal areas of Dublin Bay. The dumping of large quantities of dredged material may cause adverse effects on local harbour porpoise populations. Porpoises feed mainly on small shoaling fishes, with many prey items taken on or close to the benthos (NPWS 2013). Dumping of dredged material will smother benthic communities, and shoaling fish are likely to move away from the dump site during operations, with potential loss of foraging opportunities for harbour porpoise. The disposal site has been used for dredge spoil disposal for many decades, with the benthos and demersal fish species subject to periodic smothering, and the dump site is not a known ‘hotspot’ for harbour porpoise foraging. Data on the distribution of cetacean species from January 2009 to July 2011 show only a single harbour porpoise sighting in the vicinity of the Burford Bank with a more inshore/coastal distribution of harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin (CDM 2012). Therefore, any displacement resulting from impacts on available prey are unlikely, will be temporary and are not considered to be significant. An earlier study also confirmed that the effects of dredging and dumping at the Burford Bank on harbour porpoise would, at worst, be localised and temporary (Natura, 2013). It is expected that animals would habituate to stationary vessels, and would return to foraging in the affected areas when operations area completed (Natura, 2013). However, given the volumes of material to be dumped, and the long time-scale of these operations, mitigation measures to reduce and avoid the potential impact of dredging and dumping on harbour porpoise are provided in Section 5.2.9.

To effectively assess cumulative impacts of the proposed works the temporal and spatial elements of the planned operations needs to be considered. Piling and dredging within the basin at the same time would increase the potential impacts of sound exposure to marine



mammals therefore simultaneous dredging, demolition and piling should not occur, or should be strictly limited in the basin to minimise risk.

The dredge spoil disposal site has been routinely used for the dumping of dredged material, and permits have been issued for the dumping of approximately eight million tonnes of material at this site between 1997 and 2012. It is not considered to be a significant feeding area for cetaceans or seals and therefore any displacement resulting from impacts on available prey are unlikely.

5.2.8 Assessment of impact magnitude and significance

The proposed piling and dredging in Dublin Port; dredging works within Dublin bay; and dumping of dredged material the west of the Burford Bank will have little likelihood of direct impacts on marine mammals in the area at a population level, the scale of effects are therefore not considered significant. It is however, likely that individual marine mammals entering the works area will be affected by acoustic disturbance resulting from noise and boat activity associated with demolition works, piling, dredging, and dumping, and it is recommended that vigilance as a mitigation measure should be maintained for any marine mammal approaching the area throughout operations. The proposed works will occur at all stages of the tide, and there is an increased likelihood of marine mammals using the harbour at the high tide stage. It is best practise to employ a marine mammal observer to ensure impacts of coastal works (including piling, demolition, dredging and dumping) are minimised. Given the proposed works will take place in the vicinity of a candidate Special Area of Conservation for harbour porpoise, the zone of behavioural responses to noise from piling operations is likely to extend into the cSAC, the uncertainty in assessing the type and significance of behavioural responses, and the duration of piling works, it is wise to employ a precautionary approach with regards to impacts on populations within the cSAC. Assessing and monitoring of the responses of harbour porpoise to noise, particularly within the cSAC, during construction is recommended.


Following guidelines from the National Parks & Wildlife Service (2013), the following precautionary measures are advised to minimise the risk of direct injury to marine mammals in the area of operations:

• A trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer* (MMO) should be put in place during piling, dredging, dumping, and demolition operations. The MMO will scan the surrounding area to ensure no marine mammals are in a pre-determined exclusion zone in the 30-minute period prior to operations. It is suggested that this exclusion zone is 500m for demolition and dredging activities, and 1,000m for piling activities considering the potential risks outlined.

• Noise-producing activities shall only commence in daylight hours where effective visual monitoring, as performed and determined by the MMO, has been achieved. Where effective visual monitoring is not possible, the sound-producing activities shall be postponed until effective visual monitoring is possible. Visual mitigation for marine mammals (in particular harbour porpoise) will only be effective during daylight hours and if the sea state is 2-3 (Beaufort scale) or less. In the absence of year-round data on marine mammal use within Dublin Bay, there is no justification for limiting works to any particular season.



• For piling activities, where the output peak sound pressure level (in water) exceeds 170 dB re: 1μPa @ 1m, a ramp-up procedure must be employed following the pre-start monitoring. Underwater acoustic energy output shall commence from a lower energy start-up and thereafter be allowed to gradually build up to the necessary maximum output over a period of 20-40 minutes.

• Once operations have begun, operations should cease temporarily if a cetacean or seal is observed swimming in the immediate (<50m) area of piling and dredging and work can be resumed once the animal(s) have moved away.

• Dumping of material at sea should not take place if a cetacean or seal is within 50m of the vessel.

• Any approach by marine mammals into the immediate (<50 m) works area should be reported to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

• If there is a break in piling activity for a period greater than 30 minutes then all pre-activity monitoring measures and ramp-up (where this is possible) should recommence as for start-up.

• Once normal operations commence (including appropriate ramp-up procedures), there is no requirement to halt or discontinue the activity at night-time, nor if weather or visibility conditions deteriorate, nor if marine mammals occur within a radial distance of the sound source that is 500m for dredging and demolition works, and 1000m for piling activities.

• The MMO will keep a record of the monitoring using a ‘MMO form location and effort (coastal works)’ available from the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) and submit to the NPWS on completion of the works.

• Further more detailed guidance on the above can be found in NPWS (2013)

• In order to reliably quantify the zone of responsiveness associated with the proposed programme of piling activities associated with the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, one of the following methods will be used:

o Modelling of sound propagation calibrated using field measurements; or

o Deployment of hydrophones in combination with passive acoustic monitoring.

*A qualified marine mammal observer (MMO) is a visual observer who has undergone formal marine mammal observation training (JNCC MMO training course or equivalent) and has a minimum of six weeks marine mammal survey experience at sea over a three year period. MMO’s for use in Ireland should have field experience in marine mammal monitoring in European waters and be familiar with the Irish regulatory procedures relevant to the activity to which they are assigned, in order to ensure compliance. MMOs should have at least three years’ experience in surveying/identifying harbour porpoise as the area is important for this species and they are difficult to visually detect even in a favourable sea-state.



5.2.10 Residual Impacts

With full implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9, there will be no significant impacts of the proposed development on marine mammals, including harbour porpoise. It is concluded that there will be no significant impacts of the proposed development on the Conservation Objectives of the Special Areas of Conservation in Dublin Bay or the neighbouring coastlines, including the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC.



5.3 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY


This Section details the potential risks to terrestrial ecology and nature conservation and makes recommendations for mitigation measures related to the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment.

5.3.2 Methodology

Key Sources

A desktop review was carried out to identify features of ecological importance within the study area and surrounding region. From a biodiversity perspective, the proposed development area and a surrounding 2km buffer zone was included in a trawl to collate relevant environmental data and anecdotal information to assist with the ecological assessment and evaluation. Reference was made to the following key legislation and documents:

Republic of Ireland

• The Wildlife Act 1976 as amended by the Wildlife Act 1976 (Protection of Wild Animals) Regulations, 1980, the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2010 (The Wildlife Acts);

• European Communities (Conservation of Wild Birds) Regulations 1985 (S.I. 291/1985)

as amended by S.I. 31/1995;

• European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, S.I. 94/1997 as amended by S.I. 233/1998 & S.I. 378/2005 (The Habitats Regulations);

• European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 477/2011);

• The Flora (Protection) Order, 1999 (S.I. No. 94/1999);

• The Planning & Development Acts, 2000-2010;

• Actions for Biodiversity 2011-2016: Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan (2013);

• Threat Response Plan: Otter 2009-2011 (DEHLG, 2009).

European

• Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitat’s Directive);

• Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

conservation of wild birds (codified version of Directive 79/409/EEC as amended) (The Birds Directive);



• Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy (The Water Framework Directive);

• Council Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention

and remedying of environmental damage (The Environmental Liability Directive);

• Directive 2006/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life (The Fish Directive (consolidated)).

The following Databases were consulted to retrieve ecological data:

• National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) (http://www.npws.ie/mapsanddata/); • National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) (http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/);

The following websites were also consulted:

• Invasive Species Ireland (http://www.invasivespeciesireland.com/); • Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management (CIEEM) (http://www.cieem.net/)

Consultations

Formal consultations were undertaken with the following organisations, which were felt to be of particular relevance to terrestrial ecology and nature conservation:

• National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS); • Bat Conservation Ireland (BCI)

Field Survey Methodology

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of Alexandra Basin West and Terminal 5 Ro-Ro Basin was undertaken on the 22 May 2013. The P&O lands and North Quay at Alexandra Basin West could not be accessed on this visit. These areas were instead surveyed on the 29 May 2013.

The survey methodology followed the Heritage Council’s Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping (Smith et al., 2011). Habitat assessment categories used were consistent with those outlined in A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000). Reference was also made to CIEEM - Technical Guidance Series Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM, 2013). All habitats encountered were recorded and mapped and an intensive search was undertaken for protected and invasive species.



The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey is a multipurpose survey, which aims to identify any or all of the following ecological features:

Plant habitats

• Dominant plant species; • Protected, priority, and rare plant species.

Invasive Flora & Fauna species

• These species “cause considerable risk to biodiversity” via predation, competition, or interbreeding with native species, or are general pest species;

• Regulation 49 and 50 of The Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations places restrictions

on the introduction of any species listed in the Third Schedule of the Regulations;

• Other invasive and potentially economically damaging flora and fauna species not subject to legal penalties for release into the wild are listed on the Invasive Species Ireland Website.

Invertebrates

• Protected and rare invertebrates listed on the Third Schedule of The Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations;

• Invasive invertebrates (see above).

Protected Amphibians: potential smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris and common frog Rana temporaria breeding habitat.

In Ireland, common frog and smooth newt are protected under the Irish Wildlife Act (1976, amended 2000). Common frog is listed on Annex V of the Habitats Directive.

Following EU Habitats and Species Directive Guidelines the current National Conservation Assessment for Rana temporaria was assessed as Favourable or ‘good’ (green). This apparent improvement from the Inadequate or ‘poor’ status assessment reported in 2007 is due to an improved understanding of how frogs use the Irish landscape. Reid et al. (2013)

• Smooth newt and common frog are protected Annex V species protected under the EU Habitats Directive and the Wildlife Acts (1976 and 2000).

• Newts are found in a diversity of habitats including uplands, farmland and urban areas,

but are most likely to be found in small to medium sized ponds (Inns, 2009). The breeding habitat varies from large to small ponds to densely weeded ditches. Newts are more likely to be found in ponds (non-linear) than in ditches (linear) (O’Neill et al., 2004), and show a strong preference for fish-free waterbodies (Inns, 2009). In 2004 a



survey of newts in Northern Ireland by Quercus concluded that it remains difficult to predict the likelihood of newt presence based on habitat, and highlighted that there is a clear requirement for surveys of sites proposed for development (O’Neill et al., 2004). Notes were made of potential breeding waterbodies recorded within the development footprints and immediate surrounds along with the presence of frogs/tadpoles, fish, and predatory birds.

Protected Reptiles: Potential Common Lizard breeding habitat

• Common lizards are protected in the Republic of Ireland under The Wildlife Act (1976, Amended 2000). Live sightings of common lizard are very rarely observed outside of formal survey. Field signs are generally limited to the rare discoveries of shed skins. Nevertheless, care was made to search for lizards where appropriate habitat was identified. Common lizard habitat includes coastlines along with open woods, heaths and grassland. Potential refuges (e.g. sheets of plastic or metal) within the survey area were overturned to look for sheltering individuals.

Seasonality of Survey

Seasonality is a key issue in ecological surveys as the timing of survey may dictate whether certain groups are under-recorded or missed altogether. It is impossible to survey for all organisms in one survey visit due to the staggered nature of the life histories of different species. For example, different butterfly species are in flight and different flower species bloom at different times throughout the year. The extended survey timeframe and series of site visits adopted, facilitated the capture of data from optimum survey windows for many species of flowering plants and wildlife.

Badger Survey

During survey, a careful examination of all habitat features was made for signs of badger activity. However, habitat features of potential interest to badger were almost entirely absent at both survey locations. Searches for signs of activity were undertaken in accordance with NRA Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009). Otter Survey

A search for field signs indicative of otter activity took place. Guidance was Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009). Field signs indicative of otter presence include:

• Spraints; • Food remains; • Rolling places; • Slides down river banks; • Footprints or paths and; • Shelters (either holts or couches).



Bat Survey

During survey, landscape features (buildings, built structures, individual trees & groups of trees etc.) potentially used by bats were identified, in accordance with the BCT Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines (2012).

An external inspection of structures/buildings scheduled for demolition, or to be relocated, was undertaken from the ground to determine the presence of bats or likely presence of bats. This involved identification of faecal pellets, urine, oil stains and feeding remains, which indicate evidence of bat activity.

Two structures were cited as having some bat roost potential: the lighthouse on North Quay and the building on Alexandra Quay associated with the Tara Mines conveyor. The lighthouse and P&O grounds were accessed on the 29 May 2013.

A further four structures scheduled for demolition later in the project, located in the P&O grounds were assessed on the 23 January 2014.

A single building at Alexandra Quay is derelict and shows some bat roost potential. It is also set for demolition as it is part of the Tara mines bulk jetty conveyor system (which will be removed). This building is in a poor state of repairs. Crevices or cavities occur. However, there were no visible signs such as droppings, scratch marks, urine staining or grease marks.

Impact Assessment

In the assessment stage, impact assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (2011), and also using experience of ‘best practice’ in the ecological assessment of similar developments. Ecological features are firstly valued (Table 5.3.1). The magnitude of an impact is assessed using criteria set out in Table 5.3.2. The impact significance (Table 5.3.3) is a combined function of the ecological value of the affected feature and the magnitude of the impact. It is important to note that there is no universally recognised definition of what constitutes significance. A combination of data, experience and the precautionary principle were therefore employed to select the appropriate ecological value, and magnitude categories. The ecological value of a feature is generally relatively easy to categorise. However, the magnitude of potential impact may be difficult (or in certain cases impossible) to categorise. The following parameters were therefore considered:

• Physical nature; • Type (+ve/-ve, Direct/Indirect); • Range of species & habitats affected; • Population sizes of species & habitats affected; • Geographic scale; • Duration; • Cumulative effects.



Once identified, and characterised for magnitude, each potential impact was assigned a likelihood of occurrence (after mitigation):

o Certain (100%); o Near-certain (95-100%); o Probable (50-95%); o Unlikely (5-50%); o Extremely Unlikely (0-5%).

Table 5.3.1 Ecological Value of Features

Value Criteria Examples

Very high High importance and rarity, international scale and limited potential for substitution

Internationally designated sites

High High importance and rarity, national scale, or regional scale with limited potential for substitution

Nationally designated sites. Regionally important sites with limited potential for substitution.

Medium High or medium importance and rarity, local or regional scale, and limited potential for substitution

Regionally important sites with potential for substitution. Locally designated sites.

Low Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale

Undesignated sites of some local biodiversity and earth heritage interest

Negligible Very low importance and rarity, local scale

Other sites with little or no local biodiversity and earth heritage interest

Potential impacts described in later sections assume no specific mitigation measures. Specific mitigation measures are therefore proposed where required to neutralise impacts identified as likely.

Table 5.3.2 Criteria for Determining the Magnitude of Potential Ecological Impact

Magnitude Criteria

Major negative

The proposal (either on its own or with other proposals) may adversely affect the integrity of the site, in terms of coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and / or the population levels of species of interest.

Intermediate negative

The site’s integrity will not be adversely affected, but the effect on the site is likely to be significant in terms of its ecological objectives. If, in the light of full information, it cannot be clearly demonstrated that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on integrity, then the impact should be assessed as major negative.

Minor negative

Neither of the above applies, but some minor negative impact is evident. (In case of Natura 2000 sites a further appropriate assessment may be necessary if detailed plans are not yet available).

Neutral No observable impact in either direction. Positive Impacts which provide a net gain for wildlife overall.



Table 5.3.3 Estimating the Overall Ecological Appraisal Category

Magnitude of Potential Impact

Ecological value of sites damaged or improved

Very high High Medium Low Negligible

Major negative

Very large adverse

Very large adverse

Moderate adverse

Slight adverse Neutral

Intermediate negative Large adverse Large

adverse Moderate adverse


Minor negative Slight adverse Slight

adverse Slight adverse


Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

Positive Large beneficial

Large beneficial

Moderate beneficial

Slight beneficial Neutral

5.3.3 Baseline Assessment

The authority of particular relevance to terrestrial ecology and nature conservation is the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). The responses received from NPWS as part of the consultation phase of the EIS are presented in Chapter 2 – Consultation Process.

Designated Sites for Nature Conservation

The proposed Alexander Basin redevelopment does not lie within any statutory sites designated for nature conservation. Six Natura 2000 sites and two Ramsar sites lie within 5km of the development:

North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000206);

South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000210);

North Bull Island SPA (Site Code: 004006);

South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (Site Code: 004024);

Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary: Ramsar Site (Site Code:832);

North Bull Island: Ramsar Site (Site Code: 406).

SPAs and Ramsar Sites are considered in Section 5.1 (Birds).

All site citation documents, standard Natura Data Forms and conservation objectives are provided in the Habitats Directive Assessment - Natura Impact Statement (under separate cover).

There are two designated cSACs within 2km of both development sites.



North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000210)

The actual landform within the wider site is North Bull Island. This is a relatively recent deposition feature almost 5km long and 1km wide. The sediment forming the island is predominantly glacial in origin. The internal golf course is excluded from the site. There are two sheltered intertidal areas between the island and the mainland separated by a solid causeway (built road). To the east is a substantial area of shallow marine water. Nature conservation is the main land-use within this site.

This site was selected as a cSAC based on the occurrence of the following Annex I habitats and a single Annex II species:

Annex I habitats

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140]

Annual vegetation of drift lines [1210]

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand [1310]

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330]

Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410]

Embryonic shifting dunes [2110]

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) [2120]

Humid dune slacks [2190]

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) [2130]

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) is listed with priority status.

Annex II species

Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii [1395]

North Bull Island is the only know extant site for the rare liverwort P. ralfsii, away from the western seaboard.

There are three rare plant species legally protected under the Flora Protection Order 1987 occurring on Bull Island: lesser centaury Centaurium pulchellum, hemp nettle Galeopsis angustifolia and meadow saxifrage Saxifraga granulata. Wild sage Salvia verbenaca and spring vetch Vicia lathyroides occur listed as ‘threatened’ in the Red Data Book.



North Bull Island is also a designated Wildfowl Sanctuary, a Ramsar Convention site, a Biosphere Reserve and a Special Amenity Order site.

South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000210)

This is an intertidal site with extended areas of sand and mudflats. The site was selected for presence of this Annex I habitat, specifically known as ‘mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide’ - habitat code: 1140. This site extends from the South Wall to West Pier at Dun Laoghaire. Sediments are predominantly sands but these grade into sandy-muds near the shore at Merrion Gates.

The Natura 2000 sites listed above are assessed within the Habitats Directive Assessment - Natura Impact Statement which accompanies this EIS (under separate cover).

Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs)

No Natural Heritage Areas or proposed NHAs are considered to be potentially affected by the proposed development.

Protected Species (existing records)

The National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) was used to assess the distribution of any protected flora or fauna species present within the vicinity of the project footprint.

Protected species included those listed on:

• Annex II of Habitats Directive; • Schedules of the Wildlife Acts;

• The First Schedule of the Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations (all species listed in

Annex IV and V of The Habitats Directive) and;

• The Flora Protection Order 1999.

The proposal is located within NBDC’s 10km grid squares O13 and O23; a focussed 1km buffer was selected to identify the potential for protected species to occur within the footprint of the works area and adjacent habitats, the results of which are presented in Table 5.3.4.



Table 5.3.4 Protected Species identified within a 1 km buffer from the Alexander Basin Redevelopment

Species Conservation Status

Occurring or likely to occur within the proposed works area

Mammals Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) WA; Annex II Likely to occur European Otter (Lutra lutra) WA; Annex II Likely to occur Lesser Noctule (Nyctalus leisleri) WA; B&NH Recorded from the works areaPipistrelle (Pipistrellus spp) WA; B&NH Recorded from the works area Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) WA; B&NH Likely to occur Birds Brent Goose (Branta bernicla) WA Recorded from the works area Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) WA Not likely to occur Black Guillemot (Cepphus grille) WA Recorded from the works area Common guillemot (Uria aalge) WA Not likely to occur Redshank (Tringa totanus) WA Not likely to occur Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) WA; B&NH Not likely to occur Greenshank (Tringa nebularia) WA Not likely to occur Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) WA Not likely to occur Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula) WA Not likely to occur Common Pochard (Aythya farina) WA Not likely to occur Gadwall (Anas strepera) WA Not likely to occur Wigeon (Anas penelope) WA Not likely to occur Eurasian Teal (Anas crecca) WA Recorded from the works area Northern Pintai(Anas acuta) WA Not likely to occur Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata) WA Not likely to occur Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) WA Not likely to occur Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) WA Recorded from the works area Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) WA Likely to occur Little Tern (Sternula albifrons) WA; B&NH Not likely to occur Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis) WA; B&NH Likely to occur Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) WA; B&NH Recorded from the works area Common tern (Sterna hirundo) WA; B&NH Recorded from the works area Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) WA Recorded from the works area Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) WA Likely to occur Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola) WA Not likely to occur Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) WA Not likely to occur Golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) WA; B&NH Not likely to occur Cormorant (Plalacrocorax carbo) WA Recorded from the works areaEuropean Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) WA Recorded from the works areaDunlin (Calidris alpina) WA Not likely to occur Red Knot (Calidris canutus) WA Not likely to occur Curlew (Numenius arquata) WA Not likely to occur Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) WA Likely to occur Common scoter (Melanitta nigra) WA Likely to occur Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) WA Recorded from the works area Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) WA Not likely to occur Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus) WA; B&NH Likely to occur Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus) WA Likely to occur Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus fuscus) WA Recorded from the works area Mew Gull (Larus canus) WA Likely to occur



Species Conservation Status

Occurring or likely to occur within the proposed works area

Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) WA Recorded from the works area Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) WA Recorded from the works area Red-throated Diver (Gavia stellata) WA; B&NH Not likely to occur Great Northern Diver (Gavia immer) WA Not likely to occur Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) WA Not likely to occur Little Egret(Egretta garzetta) WA Not likely to occur Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) WA Not likely to occur Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis) WA Not likely to occur Common Linnet (Carduelis cannabina) WA Not likely to occur Amphibians Common frog (Rana temporaria) WA; B&NH Not likely to occur Flora Baltic Bryum (Bryum marratii) FPO Not likely to occur Small Cudweed (Filago minima) FPO Not likely to occur Key to Table 5.3.4 WO - The Wildlife Order WA - The Wildlife Acts B&NH - The Birds and Natural Habitat Regulations; Annex II - Annex II of The Habitats Directive FPO - The Flora Protection Order

Extended Phase 1 Survey Habitat Results

This Section should be read with reference to the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map presented in Appendix 5. Only terrestrial habitats above the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM) are detailed here. Intertidal, subtidal and marine habitats below the Mean High Water Mark are detailed in Section 5.4 (Benthic Ecology and Fisheries).


Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL30) / Sea walls, piers and jetties (CC1)

This site is almost entirely composed of artificial surfaces and sea walls, piers and jetties. Terrestrial plant life is restricted to crevices or abandoned areas of hard standing. Typical species colonising these grounds include butterfly bush Buddleja davidii, annual meadow grass Poa annua, common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, rape Brassica napus and Oxford ragwort Senecio squalidus.

The terrestrial component of this habitat (buildings and artificial surfaces) is of low importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘negligible’ ecological value.

Exposed sand, gravel or till (ED1) / Spoil and bare ground (ED2)

This habitat is a large elongated dome of infill material, presumably dredged sediments. Courser grade material occurs on the seaward side of the mound and is poorly vegetated. The exposed materials further back are becoming vegetated with common herb and grass species such as bents Agrostis spp., clovers Trifolium spp., Oxford ragwort and butterfly bush.



This habitat has low to medium importance at a local scale due to the presence of mixed species flowering herbs. In urban areas this habitat can be important for invertebrates, particularly bees.

The terrestrial component of this habitat is of low to medium importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘low’ ecological value.

Berth 52/53

Exposed sand, gravel or till (ED1) / Spoil and bare ground (ED2)

This habitat is primarily piled sediments (presumably dredged sediments) that have been stockpiled. Fast colonising species are patchily present including butterfly bush, teasel Dipsacus fullonum, kidney vetch Anthyllis vulnereria, Oxford ragwort, mayweeds Tripleurospermum spp., ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, common bent Agrostis stolonifera and white clover Trifolium repens.

This habitat has low to medium importance at a local scale due to the continued arrival of broadleaved herbs, providing foraging habitat for invertebrates, particularly bees.

The terrestrial component of this habitat is of low to medium importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘low’ ecological value.

The rock armour at Berth 52/53 support common lichen species including Verrucaria maura, Xanthoria spp. and occasional Ramalina spp.

Invasive Flora & Fauna species

No plant species listed in Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations were found during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey.

No animal species listed in Parts 2A and 2B of the aforementioned Regulations were found during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey.

Invertebrates, Amphibians and Reptiles

Protected Amphibians

Reid et al. (2013) state that common frog were most likely to breed in shallow water bodies surrounded by marsh, fen and wet flushes whilst the density of breeding adults was associated with water bodies surrounded by scrub and long grass (Reed et al., 2013). No such habitat occurs within either development.

Similarly, there were no observations of smooth newt, with no suitable breeding ponds occurring within either development footprint.

Both species were however recorded in the in the NBDC’s 10km grid squares O13 and O23.



Protected Reptiles: Potential Common Lizard breeding habitat

Common lizard was not observed during survey. Some suitable habitat does occur within the development footprints. Dredged sands within Site A adjoining Site B at Berth 52/53 (see Appendix 5) have good sun exposure for basking and opportunities for cover. Both sites however are extremely isolated within little or no connectivity to extended areas of open habitat.

Mammals

No signs of badger activity were recorded within 50m of either development footprints during Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys. This is not surprising given the complete dearth of suitable foraging habitat in the wider area.

There were no confirmed otter sightings or signs. Otter has been recorded in the wider 10km squares (O13 and O23).

The National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) was used to assess the distribution of any protected flora or fauna species present within the vicinity of the project footprint. Eight bat species records occur in the 10km squares O13 and O23. These are common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, natterer’s bat Myotis nattererii , whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus, Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri and brown long-eared Plecotus auritus (NBDC, 2013).

Pre-Survey Assessment for Bats

On close examination the lighthouse (a metal barrel structure) had no potential for bat roosts or usage. Floors and structures within the lighthouse were searched. There was no evidence of bat usage.

The foraging potential of the site is considered ‘low’ in accordance with BCT: Good Practice Guidelines (2012). Habitats typically associated with Irish bats (hedgerow, tree lines, fresh watercourses) are entirely absent from both development sites.

The building by the Tara Mines conveyer remained the only structure with bat roost potential, albeit low potential based on the dearth of foraging habitat within the site and wider lands.

As a precaution, an Anabat SD2 bat detector powered by a 12 V external battery was fixed to this building, approximately 2m off the ground. The bat detector was left in position for a two week period from the 29/06/2011 to 13/06/2013. The bat detector was programmed to automatically operate during set time periods in order to record bat activity between dusk and dawn each night.

An AnaBat AnalookW Version 3.8s was used to undertake analysis of data collected during this automated passive monitoring. Bat activity was measured using the number of files containing a bat call or bat call sequence irrespective of length, for a complete night of recording. Passive monitoring enables determination of species composition and temporal activity patterns between different times of year and different times of night at a fixed point location.



Automated Passive Monitoring Results

This passive survey was undertaken for a two week period (15 nights) for a total of 127.5 survey hours. The results of bat activity surveys together with details of dates, times and meteorological condition can be found in Appendix 5.

Two bat species were recorded: common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri. A visual representation of the spatial variation in bat activity is illustrated in Figures 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. It is not possible to determine the number of individual bats recorded during automated passive monitoring as it is not possible to distinguish between multiple passes of a single bat and single passes of multiple bats.

Night

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

29/05

- 30/0

5

30/05

- 31/0

5

31/05

- 01/0

6

01/06

- 02/0

6

02/06

- 03/0

6

03/06

- 04/0

6

04/06

- 05/0

6

05/06

- 06/0

6

06/06

- 07/0

6

07/06

- 08/0

6

08/06

- 07/0

6

09/06

- 10/0

6

10/06

- 11/0

6

11/06

- 12/0

6

12/06

- 13/0

6

Number of Anabat FilesContaining Bat Calls

Figure 5.3.1 Temporal Variation in Bat Activity for each Night (PM and AM) throughout the 15 Night Survey Period

A total of 51 Anabat files containing bat calls were recorded over a 15 night period: 3 common pipistrelle and 48 Leisler’s bat, 45 of which occurred on the single night of 4-5 June. Leisler’s bat accounted for 43 of these 45 calls. The remaining two were common pipistrelle. The time of peak activity on this night was between 23.00 and 01.00 hours.

Sunset at this time of the year 21:15 hrs and Leisler’s bat emerge from roosting sites from about 20 minutes after sunset. Therefore, the bat activity recorded on this night is likely to be commuting and foraging bats and therefore is not indicative of bats roosting within the P&O sites. If bats were roosting within the survey area, bat activity would have been recorded within 21:00- 22:00 hrs on each night of the surveillance. This is true also for common pipistrelle bat activity recorded during the surveillance period. The third and only other common pipistrelle call occurred on 1st June.



The Leisler’s bat appears to be foraging based on their calls. It is not unusual to find terrestrial insects drifting away from their source location in which case this species may simply be ‘following to feed’ (Richardson, 2011). In Ireland, Leisler’s bat prefers pasture, also making substantial use of riparian and woodland habitats and even forages over beaches and sand dunes’ (Altringham, 2003:124).

Time of Night

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

19.00

- 20.0

0

20.00

- 21.0

0

21.00

- 22.0

0

22.00

- 23.0

0

23.00

- 00.0

0

00.00

- 01.0

0

01.00

- 02.0

0

02.00

- 03.0

0

03.00

- 04.0

0

04.00

- 05.0

0

05.00

- 06.0

0

06.00

- 07.0

0

07.00

- 08.0

0

Number of Anabat Files

Figure 5.3.2 Time of peak activity for each hour on the night of the 4th and 5th of June

Following initial survey works in 2013 four addition structures were scheduled for demolition within the P&O grounds. An inspection of these buildings was undertaken on the 23 January 2014. The structures surveyed in 2013 were re-assessed on this day including the P&O light house as well as the derelict building on Alexandra Quay West to which the Anabat SD2 was fixed in May-June 2013.

There was no evidence of bats using the sum of buildings / structures scheduled for demolition in this 2014 survey. The majority of the buildings and structures were deemed not suitable for roosting bats. The author (Aughney, 2014) is in agreement with RPS ecologists in that only two buildings were potentially suitable for roosting bats: the lighthouse on North Quay and the building on Alexandra Quay West associated with the Tara Mines conveyor. Both structures were now twice inspected and neither showed any evidence of bat usage.

As bats are transient mammals, roosting sites can vary greatly from more traditional winter (hibernation) and summer (maternity roosts) to temporary night and satellite roosts. The buildings and structures within the survey area are not suitable for the more important winter and summer roosts. However, bats will seek temporary shelter during inclement weather conditions and will often use buildings otherwise considered to be unsuitable. Such roosting is considered to be incidental.



5.3.4 Impact Assessment (including mitigation)

Local Habitats and Wildlife

Potential impacts to local habitats and wildlife for the proposed development fall into the following specific categories:

• Potential Habitat Loss Impacts

• Permanent loss of habitats

• Indirect habitat loss/degradation as a result of built structures

• Potential Pollution Impacts

• Direct pollution impacts to Annex 1 and Priority Habitats

The potential impacts on habitats as a result of the proposed development are summarised as follows:

• Whole or partial habitat loss;

• Potential pollution impacts during construction and operation causing the degradation of habitats;

• Potential degradation of habitats following changes in coastal processes.

Habitat Loss

Approx. 1.6 ha of hard standing will be lost. This loss is considered to be non-significant due to the dearth of terrestrial biodiversity they support at this specific site.

Approx. 0.9 ha of ‘spoil and bare ground - ED3’ will be lost at Alexandra Basin West and approx. 1.5 ha will be lost or significantly disturbed at Berth 52/53. These habitats are patchily vegetated, primarily by wind dispersed seed of common – ruderal flora such as butterfly bush. While there have some foraging benefit for flying insects, they have restricted access and limited foraging potential for most terrestrial fauna. The loss of these habitats is not significant.

Protected Flora

No protected flora was recorded within either development footprint.

Badger

No badger setts or signs of badger activity were recorded within 50m of the proposed footprints during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Badgers are extremely unlikely to



forage in these areas given the dearth of suitable habitat, particularly agricultural lands in the wider Dublin Port area. Overall impact is deemed negligible.

Otter

It is highly probable otters forage in the waters adjoining both development sites. However, no activity was recorded within the proposed footprints during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

The potential impacts on otters as a result of the proposed development are summarised as follows:

• Potential noise, lighting and visual disturbance to otters during construction and operation;

• Potential pollution impacts during construction or operation can result in direct fatalities. Pollution of adjoining sea waters may degrade these otter foraging habitats.

Construction

The impact on foraging activity and loss of foraging habitat along these shorelines and within the immediate development footprint during construction is expected to be minor and temporary.

In general construction activities will likely take place within daylight hours. Nocturnal otter activities within the immediate vicinity of the project footprints are therefore unlikely to be hindered by elevated noise.

Pollution incidents during construction including the spill or leakage of cement, oils, fuels and chemicals directly into foraging waters could theoretically cause otter fatalities if ingested or potential negatively impact otter prey abundances. These eventualities are largely considered unlikely.

Operation

Otters currently are generally tolerant of shipping activities and are unlikely to be negatively impacted in the longer term.

Protected Reptiles and Amphibians

No protected reptiles or amphibians were recorded within either development footprints.

Protected Invertebrates

No protected invertebrates were recorded within either development footprints.



Bats

Construction

The developments at Dublin port will not result in the loss of typical bat associated habitats such as woodland, fresh water courses and hedgerows. These habitats are completely absent from the project footprint and scare in the wider area. Both bat species recorded during passive survey bat survey are Annex IV species under the EU Habitats Directive and all have a Favourable Status in Ireland.

The impact of the proposed works is negligible. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. However, as a precaution, mitigation measures are provided below in relation to the building on Alexandra Quay west and the Light House on the North Wall Quay Extension.

The following is recommended: Mitigation by Reduction

Removal of building – Alexandra Quay West

a) Remove the roof of the building and leave open for 3-4 nights prior to demolishment of the building. This will change the internal temperature of the building and encourage residing bats to move off.

Relocation of lighthouse

b) Undertake an internal inspection of the lighthouse, prior to movement to a new location, to ensure that there are no bats within.

Bats are mobile species and can roost in buildings occasionally. It is important that vigilance for individual bats within the buildings is practiced. Only undertake these works outside the months of mid-April to mid-September to reduce the likelihood of encountering bats.

If a bat is found, remove bat with gloved hands to a bat box. If in doubt, contact the local NPWS contact ranger or bat specialist.

Operation

In more suitably vegetated habitats, inappropriate lighting has the potential to disrupt bats from roosting, commuting and foraging. Being nocturnal, bats rely on critical light levels to signify roost emergence and foraging time. Changes in artificial lighting can therefore lead to disruptions of the normal 24-hour patters of light and dark, in turn affecting the natural behaviour of bats. However, the species that were on occasion foraging at Alexandra Basin West are not light sensitive.

The removal impact is negligible.




It is unlikely that there will be negative residual impacts of the proposed works on terrestrial flora and fauna in the area.

The residual impact of the proposed works on terrestrial flora and fauna is therefore considered to be insignificant.



5.4 BENTHIC ECOLOGY AND FISHERIES


This Section addresses the benthos and fisheries aspect of the study area for the EIS. As part of the assessment baseline benthic and fisheries studies were undertaken along the length of the shipping channel and the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment sites earmarked for dredging. The findings of the benthos surveys are presented below followed by those of the fisheries desktop and field surveys.

5.4.2 Benthos

Methodology

Grab Survey

A total of 25 sub-tidal grab samples were collected in Dublin Bay. All samples were collected on the 15th and 16th May 2013 for benthic faunal analysis. All sampling stations were positioned using a Trimble Geo-XM GPS. A list of the stations sampled are presented in Table 5.4.1 and these stations are displayed on a map (Figure 5.4.1)

Table 5.4.1 Positions of subtidal soft sediment sampling stations

Easting (m) Northing (m) Easting (m) Northing (m) G01 318483.311 234290.095 G14 327391.993 232706.655 G02 318686.802 234529.060 G15 327769.831 233108.491 G03 318835.784 234328.306 G16 327717.471 233292.472 G04 318242.463 234288.800 G17 326806.859 233189.603 G05 319078.837 234180.499 G18 326990.430 233354.568 G06 320438.508 234495.914 G19 327149.429 233600.245 G07 320452.552 234346.807 G20 325864.441 232834.994 G08 320682.700 234132.994 G21 326273.777 233512.472 G09 321436.602 234111.203 G22 323921.125 234092.108 G10 321871.354 234151.191 G23 325246.383 233965.266 G11 320596.963 234251.752 G24 326565.430 234410.862 G12 324196.726 234551.763 G25 323775.098 233486.306 G13 328384.990 233082.066 AD1 In 326309.444 233727.299 AD1 Out 326345.349 233928.486



Figure 5.4.1 Map showing the positions of subtidal grab samples taken in Dublin Bay

A 0.1m2 stainless steel Van-Veen Grab was used at each station to collect one grab for benthic faunal analysis, Particle Size Analysis and Loss on Ignition Analysis.

In addition, a single Anchor Dredge sample was collected where penetration by the grab was not possible (Location AD1). At this site, the Anchor Dredge was deployed and towed for two minutes after which it was retrieved and the fauna sample was collected aboard the vessel. All samples were processed within 24 hours of collection. Samples were sieved through a 1mm mesh sieve and preserved in 4% formalin (buffered with sea water). All fauna were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible using standard keys to north-west European fauna by specialist taxonomists.

A number of biotic indices were calculated from the species / abundance matrix from the grab samples. These indices comprised

• Simpson’s Dominance Index (where values range from low dominance [0] to high dominance [1]);

• Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (Values ranging from low diversity [0] to high diversity [4]); and

• Pielou’s Evenness Index (values ranging from low i.e. dominated by a few species [0] to high evenness i.e. a more even spread of species [1]).

Granulometric Analysis

Granulometric analysis was carried out on oven dried sediment samples from each station using the protocols described by Holme & McIntyre (1984). The sediment was passed through



a series of nested brass test sieves with the aid of a mechanical shaker. The brass sieves chosen were 4mm, 2mm, 1mm, 500µm, 250µm, 125µm and 63µm. The sediments were then divided into three fractions: % Gravel (>2mm), % Sand (<2.0mm >63µm) and % Silt-Clay (<63µm). Further analysis of the sediment data was undertaken using the Gradistat package (Blott & Pye, 2001).

Organic Matter Analysis

Organic matter was estimated using the Loss on Ignition (LOI) method. One gram of dried sediment was ashed at 450˚C for 6 hours and organic carbon was calculated as % sediment weight loss.

Subtidal Video Survey

Fieldwork was carried out on the 5th June 2013. All sampling stations were positioned using a Trimble Geo-XM GPS. A complete list of stations sampled is presented in Table 5.4.2 and displayed in Figure 5.4.2.

Table 5.4.2 Positions of shallow water subtidal video survey stations

Station Co-ordinates (Irish National Grid)

Station Co-ordinates (Irish National Grid)

Easting (m) Northing (m) Easting (m) Northing (m) Video Locations Video Locations V01 234287.256 318292.137 V13 233356.932 327684.995 V02 234183.972 319017.729 V14 233039.931 327687.109 V03 234132.555 320291.608 V15 232628.605 327396.421 V04 234112.367 321499.245 V16 232629.085 328396.974 V05 234202.371 322813.531 V17 232703.426 325956.584 V06 234084.859 323950.509 V18 233393.041 323861.192 V07 233962.089 325347.290 V19 234733.151 324401.864 V08 233802.332 326457.006 V20 234335.263 326518.702 V09 233451.656 326293.656 Harbour Buoy 232863.471 328099.712 V10 233623.759 327126.615 V Alex 1 234380.316 318835.647 V11 233273.421 327124.552 V Alex 2 234444.210 318619.753

V12 233036.743 326870.169 RoRo Basin 1 (Berth 52/53) 234458.089 320435.137



Figure 5.4.2 Map showing locations of subtidal video sampling positions (June 2013)

A total of 24 stations were sampled using a drop down video camera system. Data was recorded as MPEG4 format files, recorded directly to a portable DV recorder. At each station a single recording was taken at each location. The video camera was lowered to above the sediment surface, and video imagery was recorded onto a portable DV recorder.

Benthos Results

Particle Size and Loss on Ignition Assessment

Results from the Particle Size Assessment (PSA) indicates the presence of sandy muds along the sheltered parts of the survey area within the Alexandra Basin West and Berth 52/53 Basin in Dublin Port and within the stretch of the River Liffey immediately adjacent to Dublin Port, to fine sands and gravelly sands and muddy sands along the more exposed parts of Dublin Bay (Table 5.4.3 and Figures 5.4.3 and 5.4.4). This is reflected in the Loss on Ignition values recorded in the area, with higher organic content present in the inner sites.



Figure 5.4.3 Ternary Plot of PSA results from Dublin Bay

Figure 5.4.4 Distribution of PSA within the survey area. (Grey – Gravel; Yellow – Sand; Brown – Mud)



Table 5.4.3 PSA and Loss on Ignition (LOI) results from samples taken within Dublin Bay

Grab 1 Grab 2 Grab 3 Grab 4 Grab 5 % Gravel 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5%

% Sand 33.4% 44.4% 49.9% 36.8% 39.3% % Mud 66.6% 55.6% 50.1% 63.2% 48.3% % LOI 6.29% 6.50% 5.25% 8.15% 4.45% Textural Group

Poorly Sorted Sandy Mud




Very Poorly Sorted Gravelly Mud


% Sand 75.0% 58.7% 74.3% 95.9% 95.6% % Mud 23.6% 40.5% 25.7% 3.9% 3.2% % LOI 1.43% 3.63% 3.03% 0.82% 0.70%

Textural Group

Poorly Sorted Slightly Gravelly

Muddy Sand

Poorly Sorted Slightly Gravelly

Muddy Sand

Poorly Sorted Muddy Sand

Moderately Well Sorted

Slightly Gravelly Sand

Moderately Sorted Slightly Gravelly

Sand


% Sand 70.0% 96.2% 98.4% 97.9% 98.0% % Mud 30.0% 3.8% 1.5% 2.1% 2.0% % LOI 2.35% 0.44% 0.69% 0.13% 0.23%

Textural Group

Poorly Sorted Muddy Sand Well Sorted Sand

Moderately Well Sorted Slightly Gravelly Sand

Well Sorted Sand

Very Well Sorted Sand


% Sand 98.0% 92.5% 96.4% 97.5% 92.1% % Mud 2.0% 6.7% 1.8% 2.3% 7.9% % LOI 0.32% 0.79% 0.40% 0.26% 0.95%

Textural Group


Sand

Moderately Well Sorted Slightly Gravelly Sand

Moderately Sorted Slightly Gravelly Sand


Slightly Gravelly Sand

Moderately Well Sorted Sand


% Sand 85.4% 96.4% 50.5% 92.1% 89.1% % Mud 2.7% 3.0% 49.5% 7.9% 3.4% % LOI 0.77% 0.53% 0.69% 0.34% 0.32%

Textural Group

Poorly Sorted Gravelly Sand

Moderately Sorted Slightly Gravelly Sand

Poorly Sorted Muddy Sand

Moderately Sorted Sand

Poorly Sorted Gravelly Sand



Infaunal Assessment

A total of 93 taxa were recorded in the infaunal grab samples collected from Dublin Bay (Table 5.4.4). A single Anchor Dredge sample was collected from Dublin Bay and this returned 28 taxa. A total of 100 taxa were collected during the present survey (seven taxa were recorded in the Dredge survey which weren’t recorded during the grab survey).

Table 5.4.4 Diversity indices derived from the infaunal grab data from Dublin Bay

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 No. of Species 9 5 9 6 12 4 7 10 9 17

No. of Individuals 45 44 50 62 258 11 71 484 26 30

Shannon-Wiener 1.530 1.160 1.400 0.586 1.280 0.886 0.715 0.702 1.580 2.580

Pielou's Evenness 0.695 0.720 0.636 0.327 0.515 0.639 0.367 0.305 0.721 0.910

Simpson's Dominance 0.329 0.387 0.347 0.762 0.382 0.554 0.698 0.69 0.325 0.102

G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 G19 G20 No. of Species 16 9 13 13 20 11 12 19 11 18

No. of Individuals 1010 23 51 35 167 56 26 58 51 48

Shannon-Wiener 1.250 1.810 1.870 1.930 2.020 1.820 2.310 2.390 1.650 2.450

Pielou's Evenness 0.452 0.822 0.729 0.753 0.673 0.757 0.929 0.811 0.688 0.847

Simpson's Dominance 0.370 0.225 0.250 0.246 0.199 0.232 0.115 0.141 0.318 0.122

G21 G22 G23 G24 G25 No. of Species 7 18 29 18 19

No. of Individuals 14 38 589 114 67

Shannon-Wiener 1.570 2.680 1.690 1.960 2.570

Pielou's Evenness 0.805 0.926 0.501 0.680 0.872

Simpson's Dominance 0.296 0.083 0.336 0.223 0.103

Results from the multivariate analysis on the infaunal grab data identify the presence of two distinct faunal grouping within the survey area (Figure 5.4.5 and Figure 5.4.6). The distribution of these groups forms a distinct pattern across the survey area with Group 2 being present along the western parts of the inner Dublin Bay and Group being present across the outer parts of Dublin Bay (See Fig. 5.4.13). A stress value of 0.14 indicates that the results provided by the multivariate analysis provide a useful indication on the faunal distribution patterns.

The species identified in the present survey (Table 5.4.5) are typical of shallow subtidal communities, with all species identified common in Irish coastal waters. A single station (Station 23) returned large numbers of the usually intertidal Corophium volutator.



Table 5.4.5 Results from multivariate analysis of the fauna identified in each faunal group identified in the survey area.

GROUP 1: (Average Similarity: 40.85) Chaetozone christiei Angulus tenuis Chaetozone gibber Nucula nitidosa Magelona filiformis Thracia phaseolina Abra nitida Ophiura juv. Indet Glycera sp. A Magelona johnstoni Spiophanes bombyx Angulus fabula GROUP 2: (Average Similarity: 32.88) Capitella capitata Malacoceros fulginosis Glycera sp. A Chaetozone gibber Tubificoides pseudogaster Tharyx sp. A Scalibregma inflatum

Figure 5.4.5 MDS plot of Dublin Bay fauna (Stress = 0.14). Group 1 are coloured blue,

Group 2 are coloured Red



Figure 5.4.6 Cluster dendogram indicating the distribution of sites based on faunal distribution within the survey area of Dublin Bay

Video Assessment

Results from the video survey undertaken in June 2013 confirms the results obtained from the granulometric results, with finer muds (and subsequently reduced visibility) in the sheltered parts of the survey area with coarser sediment present along the outer parts of the survey area.

Alexandra Basin West, Berth 52/53 and the inner Navigation Channel

Examination of the video data from Alexandra Basin West, Berth 52/53 and the inner Navigation Channel shows the presence of sandy muds with reduced visibility as a result of increased floc in the water column (Figure 5.4.7 and /figure 5.4.8). Station V02 and V03 contained areas of coarser materiel interspersed with areas of sandy mud. Station V04 contained rippled muddy sands with occasional Crangon sp. identified on the sediment surface. These sandy muds give way to coarser materials and associated fauna in the areas of increased water flow (Such as V03 & V04).

Group 1 Group 2



Figure 5.4.7 Representative imagery captured from the video taken along the inner extent of the survey area. Visibility was reduced with increased floc present in the water column. Sediment consists mainly of muds and gravelly muds



Figure 5.4.8 Representative imagery captured from the video taken along the inner extent of the survey area. Mixed sediment has been identified in area V03 with a gravel/mud mosaic benthos present.

Outer Dublin Bay

Video data from Outer Dublin Bay is presented in Figures 5.4.9 to 5.4.12.

Stations identified within the navigation channel in close proximity to Poolbeg Lighthouse consist primarily of muddy and fine sands. The fauna identified in the video survey reflect this sediment type. Burrowing anemones (possibly Cerianthus lloydii) were identified in this area. The echinoderms, Echinocardium cordatum and Ophiura ophiura were identified across large parts of the survey area. These are typical of muddy sand environments. Hermit Crabs (Pagurus bernhardus) and masked crabs (Corystes sp.) were common across all sites. Commercial species, such as the whelk Buccinum undatum, shrimp and flatfish were also identified.



Figure 5.4.9 Imagery captured from video data collected around the sites in close proximity to the Poolbeg Lighthouse. Small spionid tubes were identified at Station V19. The sea potato (E. cordatum) is visible in V18). Burrowing anemones are present are shown in V05



Figure 5.4.10 Imagery captured from video data collected around the outer stretches of Dublin Bay. Diatoms were common on the sediment surface in the area. Notable fauna identified in the area consists of the masked crab Corystes sp. and the brittle star O. ophiura



Figure 5.4.11 Imagery captured from video data collected around the outer stretches of Dublin Bay. Notable fauna identified in the area consists of the masked crab Corystes sp., the hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus and the brittle star O. ophiura. In addition, juvenile flatfish were identified at V12.



Figure 5.4.12 Imagery captured from video data collected around the outer extent of the survey area. The sediment in close location to the Harbour Buoy consists of fine sands, similar to those identified across large parts of the survey area. The station at V16 consists of Bryozoa and epifauna typical of exposed mixed sediment communities



Habitat Assessment

Results of the Infaunal grab survey, video assessment and trawl data were analysed to identify habitat distributions within the survey area. Each site was assigned habitat codes based in the JNCC System (Connor et al., 2004) which is closely aligned to EUNIS, the European Habitat Classification System. Habitats were identified based in fauna, grain size and depth. The distribution of these habitats is presented in Figure 5.4.13. The faunal classification of these habitat types indicates that although key identifying species are absent from the groups, both faunal groups closely resemble habitats identified by Connor et al., (2004) which are typical for both depth and sediment type identified in the area. In addition, the fauna and communities identified in the present survey along the outer parts of Dublin Bay are consistent with those identified by Walker and Rees (1980) during an assessment of Dublin Bay in relation to sludge dumping surveyed in 1971/1972 indicating the stable nature of the benthos in the area.

Group 1 shows similarities with the SS.SSa.CMuSa.AalbNuc (Abra alba and Nucula nitidosa in circalittoral muddy sand or slightly mixed sediment). Though key species are missing (although it should be noted that genus members are present), it is known to occur in ‘Non-cohesive muddy sands or slightly shelly/gravelly muddy sand characterised by the bivalves Abra alba and Nucula nitidosa. Other important taxa include Nephtys spp., Chaetozone setosa and Spiophanes bombyx with Fabulina fabula also common in many areas. The echinoderms Ophiura albida and Asterias rubens may also be present.’ (Connor et al., 2004) This is consistent with those taxa identified in the survey area of Dublin Bay east of the Poolbeg Lighthouse. Results from the video and trawl surveys corroborate this data, with epifaunal species such as Ophiura sp.and Echinocardium sp. identified in the area.

Group 2 is closely related to the habitat SS.SMu.ISaMu.Cap (Capitella capitata in enriched sublittoral muddy sediments). This has been described by Connor et al., (2004) as ‘This biotope typically occurs in marine inlets, embayments or estuaries where organic enrichment allows C. capitata to out compete other taxa’. This group is consistent with all sites identified within the upstream survey area from the Poolbeg lighthouse to the Alexandra Basin.



Figure 5.4.13 Habitat distribution map of benthic communities identified in the present survey

The faunal distribution within these habitat types is reflected in the diversity and dominance of species within each of these habitat types. The biotope identified along the inner sites (SS.SMu.ISaMu.Cap) contains high numbers of opportunistic species with relatively low diversity. This is reflected in the higher Simpson’s Dominance values (0.450 ±0.2) and lower Shannon diversity values (1.243±0.56) when compared to those identified in the outer site (SS.SSa.CMuSa.AalbNuc) for Simpsons Dominance (0.206±0.08) and Shannon diversity (2.051±0.36). The inner sites also show lower Pielou’s evenness scores, 0.572±0.19 compared to 0.771±0.11. This highlights the presence of lower diversity, with fewer species dominating the faunal communities along the inner sites when compared to the outer sites. There were no differences noted in the biotic indices between sites dredged in 2012 and those which were not dredged.

5.4.3 The Dredge Disposal Site and Proposed Disposal Plans

The Burford Bank dumpsite will be used to dispose of spoil removed from the project footprint during the six-year campaign. It is located approximately seven km east of Poolbeg, immediately west of the Burford Bank in depths ranging from -12m C.D. to -24m C.D., covering an area of 2.27 km2 (Figure 5.4.14). The dumpsite is currently used by Dublin Port to dispose of dredge spoil from the port area. It has also been used by Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company, Howth Yacht Club and Dublin Councils for the disposal of sediments.



Figure 5.4.14 Burford Bank dumpsite location

Dredge spoil would logically have been dumped in this general area going back 100 years or more as this is the closest point where a north – south current is encountered to take dredged silts away to the open sea. The site was first licensed in 1996 after the previous dumpsite located nearby closed. The area has been subjected to regular dredge spoil disposal since it was first licensed. Table 5.4.6 outlines the dredge spoil tonnages licensed for disposal at the site since 1996. Although this may not indicate the amounts actually disposed at the site under those permits, it highlights the active nature of the dumpsite on a continual basis.

The ecological impacts associated with dredge spoil disposal are considered to be site specific (Ware et al. 2010). The main factors which affect the level of impact include: the volume disposed, frequency & timing of disposal, type & quality of dredge spoil, hydrodynamic regime of the receiving environment and habitat type of the receiving environment.



Table 5.4.6 Total licensed quantity for disposal at sea for the Burford Bank dumpsite location. *2001 and 2002 have been merged together as the disposal activities overlapped across these years

Year Total Quantity Licensed

(Tonnes)1996 540,0001997 1,170,0001998 610,0001999 660,0002000 250,0002001/2002* 3,427,2002003 175,0002004 254,4502005 02006 251,1282007 253,6432008 251,1282009 6,4002010 2011 2012 1,582,805

Volume, Frequency & timing of disposal

The current development will require dredging of approximately 6,370,000 m3 of sediment. The sediment within the Alexander Basin West, comprising 470,000 m3, is contaminated and will be treated prior to disposal within Berth 52/53 (see Chapter 4). The remaining 5,900,000 m3 of sediment from the main shipping channel will be disposed of at the licensed offshore disposal site (subject to the granting of a Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA). It is expected that these sediments will be dredged over a period of six years, resulting the deposition of approximately 1.0 million m3 of sediment annually. It is proposed that dredging and disposal will only occur during a six month period (from October to March) each year. This will result in a deposition rate of approximately 177,000m3 of sediment per calendar month at the disposal site.

5.4.4 Habitat Type of the receiving environment

Geological surveys undertaken at the location of the dumpsite (INFOMAR, 2010), indicate that the site is dominated by fine to medium sands, with pockets of coarser material also present (Figure 5.4.15). The sediment is coarser along the western stretches of the dumpsite, with sediment dominated by medium sands and gravel. Sediment along the eastern area of the dumpsite is dominated by fine sands, with small amounts of mud also present. The sediment types present are an indication of water movement in the area and the presence of coarse sediments points to the occurrence of relatively strong currents in the area.



Figure 5.4.15 Sediment characterisation across the seabed of the dumpsite disposal area. Data reproduced from INFOMAR (2010)

In November 2007, a benthic survey was undertaken in the area of the existing dumpsite (Kennedy, 2008). This survey was undertaken to assess the levels of recovery at the site from previous spoil disposal events. A total of ten sampling stations (Figure 5.4.16) were sampled within the dumpsite and in its immediate vicinity. Results from this survey indicated that all stations located within and immediately adjacent to the dumpsite were characterised by the presence of polychaete Nephtys hombergii and Ophelia borealis and the mollusc Macoma balthica. This assemblage conformed to the JNCC habitat SS.SMu.ISaMu.NhomMac (Nephtys hombergii and Macoma balthica in infralittoral sandy mud. The sampling stations located within 1km and 2 ½ km to the west and southwest of the dumpsite contained fauna typical of the JNCC habitat SS.SMu.CSaMu.AfilMysAnit (Amphiura filiformis, Mysella bidentata and Abra nitida in circalittoral sandy mud. In addition, Kennedy assessed the Infaunal Quality Index across all sampling locations. A classification of ‘High’ was identified at all sites with reference to Water Framework Directive criteria. His findings concluded that the site had recovered well from previous dredging events.

In 2011, Aquafact undertook a sampling programme in the vicinity of the proposed dredge spoil disposal site (Dublin City Council, 2012). The sampling sites were located immediately west of the disposal site (Figure 5.4.16). Three sample points from this survey were within the disposal area and six stations were located immediately west of the site. Dominant fauna identified in the area included the molluscs Nucula spp., Abra sp. and Mysella bidentata as well as the echinoderm Amphiura filiformis.



Figure 5.4.16 Sampling locations from the 1998 survey (red dots) and the 2011 survey (orange dots) in the vicinity of the Burford Bank disposal area

The biological communities identified from the dumpsite and the adjacent areas in these surveys are similar to those recorded by Walker and Rees (1980), who had identified communities present in Dublin Bay dominated by similar fauna over 30 years earlier. This indicates the stable nature of the benthos within Dublin Bay and around the area of the dumpsite and its resilience to continual disposal of dredge spoil.

5.4.5 Fisheries

The following section presents the details of desktop surveys and supplementary field surveys in areas not covered by existing data sources. The desktop surveys cover the transitional waters of Dublin Bay including the migratory species using the Liffey, the Dodder and the Tolka, all of which drain to the study area. The desktop study also addresses recreational angling and commercial fishing within the Dublin Bay area. The desktop study relied heavily on Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) Water Framework Directive Fish Monitoring publications for the Lower Liffey Estuary and Tolka Estuaries, reports on the IFI Web site and consultations with Dr. James King and Dr. Willie Roche on the Liffey Annex II species.

Migratory Species Using Dublin Bay

Salmon and Seatrout

The Liffey, which is one of the largest rivers on the east coast, flows through counties Wicklow, Kildare and Dublin before discharging to Dublin Bay through the centre of the capital. It is the main river potentially impacted by the proposed development, as its lower estuary coincides with the shipping channel adjoining Alexandra Basin as well as the inner portion of the main channel dredging works. The river is regulated by hydro-electric dams in the lower section at Leixlip and in its upper reaches by a pair of dams at Golden Falls and PoIlaphuca.



The Liffey has large stretches of salmonid habitat throughout its course including spawning, nursery, feeding and holding areas for salmon, brown trout and sea trout. However, the presence of dams within the system limits the utilisation of the full potential of these habitats. To compensate for the presence of the dams the system is stocked each year with thousands of juvenile salmon in order to help sustain the stock. Currently, the Standing Scientific Committee for Salmon Conservation has set a Conservation Limit (CL) for the salmon stock in the Liffey at 4391 (total adults), which essentially means that to sustain a healthy sustainable stock within the system in the long-term, that number of adults should return to the system each year to spawn. The most recent estimates of the actual numbers returning based on counter and trap data is 641 adults (2010 data), which is well below the CL. Accordingly, no salmon or sea trout (above 40cm) were permitted to be captured and retained by anglers in the 22013 season, with permission only for 3catch and release, i.e. any fish captured would have to be returned immediately to the river. This is likely to remain the situation for the foreseeable future. One of reasons why the Liffey returns are so low compared to the theoretical CL for the river probably relates to a combination of factors including the presence of dams, the low sea survival rate in salmon generally over the past two decades and the fact that the Liffey is on the east coast and one of the last rivers to be reached by those fish that return via the route from Donegal, down the west and south coasts and eventually up the east coast.

Smolts travel to sea from the Liffey in the spring to early summer period (March to May), while a small number of multi-sea winter adults (spring salmon) return in the February to March period and grilse (salmon who have spent one winter at sea) return in summer and autumn, with a tendency in recent years for later returns.

Two other rivers which flow through Dublin, the Dodder and Tolka, also have populations of salmon and sea trout, although much smaller. The Dodder flows through south county Dublin and enters the lower Liffey in its tidal reaches at Ringsend immediately upstream from Alexandra Basin on the southern bank. Its water quality has improved in recent years and salmon have been recorded in the lower reaches. As part of the Dodder flood relief scheme several of the high weirs, which currently prevent the upward migration of adults to more suitable spawning and nursery grounds within and upstream of Dublin, will be made passable again for the first time in over a century. This is expected to result in an increase in the stocks of salmon and sea trout in the system. The Dodder is currently stocked by the local angling clubs with hatchery reared brown trout in order to boost the local population, which is heavily fished by juvenile anglers. The lower reaches are best for sea trout, and large mullet are also taken in the estuarine reaches at Ringsend. Currently, it is not permitted for any angler to retain a sea trout under 40cm or any of the small number of adult salmon which enter the system.

The Tolka rises in County Meath and flows through the northern suburbs of Dublin entering Dublin Bay in Clontarf at the western end of the tidal embayment lying between the north side of the city, the port and the Bull Wall. The river holds some large brown trout within the city limits and sea trout can be caught in the lower reaches. It is stocked with brown trout by the Tolka Anglers Club. In 2010, Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) scientists recorded juvenile salmon in the lower reaches of the river, suggesting that there may be some salmon spawning in the system, whose water quality has improved in recent years, although still classed as Poor. The

2 S.I. No. 556 of 2012 ‘Wild Salmon and Sea Trout Tagging Scheme Regulations’ 3 Bye-law 902, of 2012 (DCENR



current status of salmon in the river is unknown but the numbers occurring are likely to be very small as yet.

Other migratory species

Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) which is classed as Near Endangered by the 4IUCN, were recorded in the Liffey in the past, but there do not appear to be any recent records. That said there is a possibility that were the habitat and spawning conditions suitable the species might utilise the lower reaches below Island Bridge weir, the latter probably posing a barrier to any further upstream migration for the species. Recent detailed surveys in 56 main stem and tributary sites throughout the Liffey confirmed the widespread occurrence of juvenile lamprey. These could be either brook or river lamprey (Lampetra planeri or L. fluviatilis) but because the two species are indistinguishable at the juvenile stage they are treated as paired species. It is likely, however, that the brook lamprey is the more widespread. Both species are classed as Least Concern by the IUCN. Note that three river lamprey were recorded in a fyke net by IFI personnel in Water Framework Directive fish monitoring surveys in the Upper Liffey Estuary in mid-October 2010 (IFI, 2010).

Marine and Estuarine Species – Inland Fisheries Ireland Surveys

As part of the Water Framework Directive fish monitoring programme for transition waters around the Irish Coast IFI have undertaken several surveys of the Lower Liffey and the Tolka estuaries using a combination of beach seines, fyke nets and beam trawls. Table 5.4.7 lists the top ten species taken in each of these surveys along with comparative data for other east coast estuaries & embayments also sampled by the IFI. In terms of greatest abundance, spratt, sand goby and juvenile mullet are by far the most common fish taken in the Lower Liffey and Tolka Estuaries with sand smelt and occasionally cod also prominent. In terms of gear, the large numbers of inshore and pelagic species, (e.g. gobies, spratt and juvenile mullet and bass) are caught in beach seines in particular, while eel, cod and 5-bearded rockling tend to be caught more in fyke nets. Flatfish are more likely to be taken in beam trawls, although they can appear in the other two gear types also. The Lower Liffey transitional water area extends from Talbot Memorial Bridge downstream, encompassing all the channel and associated dock areas, including the Alexandra Basin west and Berth 52/53 basin. At its seaward end the area extends beyond the port bounded to the south by the Great South Wall and on the northern side seaward of the port the area widens to reach the southern tip of the Bull Wall. The seaward end expands out in a fan-shaped area extending about 0.5km beyond the Poolbeg Lighthouse. The Tolka Estuary Survey area includes the lower estuary of the Tolka extending northward at the back of Bull Island as far as the road joining it from Raheny. It is bounded to the south by the northern edge of Dublin Port and at its seaward end by a line running from the North Bull Wall Light west to the seaward edge of Dublin Port.

4 IUCN = International Union for Nature Consrvation



Castletown Estuary (Dundalk) 2009

Inner Dundalk Bay 2009

Boyne Estuary 2009 Rogerstown 2008 2010

Tolka Estuary 2008

Tolka Estuary 2010

Liffey Lower Estuary 2008

Liffey Lower Estuary 2010

Lower Slaney Estuary 2009

Flounder 2424 Sprat 807 Sprat 2232 Sand goby 3289 950 Sand goby 2741 Mullet 326 Sprat 212 Mullet 1078 Sand goby 513

Sprat 1963 Cod 251 Flounder 114 Sprat 2213 15 Sprat 404 Cod 58 Sand Goby 43 Sand goby 24 Flounder 447

Sand goby 121 Plaice 224

Long-spined sea 99 Mullet 488 40 Mullet 122

Sand goby 50

Sand Smelt 10 Flounder 9

3-spined stickleback 346

Eel 18 Flounder 33 Cod 86 Sea bass 94 - Sand smelt 19

Sand smelt 32

3-spined stickleback 10

Long-spined 4 Mullet 127

Plaice 13

5-bearded rockling 27

Sand goby 41

5-bearded rockling 28 25 Eel 12

5-bearded rockling 18 Cod 6

Lesser sandeel 3 Plaice 89

Cod 13 Dab 22 Lesser sandeel 36

Lesser sandeel 26 87 Cod 11 Flounder 7 Mullet 5

5-bearded rockling 3 Cod 27

Herring 11 Sand goby 16 Eel 27 Sand smelt 26 12 Flounder 10 Sprat 7 Pollack 5 Cod 3 Eel 15

5Mullet 5 Whiting 14 Plaice 20 Eel 23 2

3-bearded rockling 7 Whiting 5 Eel 4 Pollack 3

5-bearded rockling 14

Sea Trout 2 Blenny 2 Herring 16 Flounder 22 31 Lesser Sandeel 6

Short-spined Sea 3 Flounder 3

15-spined stickleback 3 Pollack 12

3-spined stickleback 2 Pouting 2 Butterfish 10 Plaice 12 14 Pollack 4 Eel 1

Long-spined Sea Scorpion 2

Sand smelt 2 Sprat 10

Table 5.4.7 Transitional Water monitoring results for the Water Framework Directive 2008-2012 by Inland Fisheries Ireland for selected coastal embayments along the east coast – the data show the top ten most abundant species taken in each case. Reports available for download on www.wfdfish.ie. The figures represent catches using a combination of beach seines, fyke nets and beam trawls

.

5 Thick-lipped grey mullet



Fisheries Field Survey

The following section outlines the baseline fisheries data collected through trawl surveys in order to supplement existing data for the study area and in particular the middle and outer areas for which there was little existing information.

Fisheries Survey Methodology

Trawling was undertaken on three dates, 17th May, 18th May and 5th June 2013 to assess the main benthic fish and mobile invertebrates within and adjacent to the proposed dredging area. The May samples were taken using a 2m beam trawl, while the 5th June samples were taken using a 1.5m beam trawl. In addition two fyke nets were deployed on the 17th May and recovered on the 18th May. All sampling stations were positioned using a Garmin 72H GPS. A list of stations sampled are presented in Table 5.4.8 and displayed in Figure 5.4.17.

Figure 5.4.17 Locations of fyke nets (May 17th and 18th 2013) and beam trawl locations and May 17, 18th and June 5th 2013



Table 5.4.8 Beam trawl locations May 17th, 18th and June 5th 2013

Date Station

Co-ordinates (Irish National Grid)

Station

Co-ordinates (Irish National Grid)

Easting (m) Northing (m) Easting (m) Northing

(m) Trawl locations Trawl Location

17/05/2013 Trawl 18 in 327848 232638 Trawl 18 Out 327465 231847 17/05/2013 Trawl 2 in 326168 234712 Trawl 2 Out 325578 234967 17/05/2013 Trawl 11 in 326113 233414 Trawl 11 Out 325244 233456 17/05/2013 Trawl 14 in 327016 232825 Trawl 14 Out 326402 232799 17/05/2013 Trawl 13 in 326036 233972 Trawl 13 Out 325768 234493 17/05/2013 Trawl 10 in 325041 234291 Trawl 10 Out 324525 234341 17/05/2013 Trawl 9 in 324515 233790 Trawl 9 Out 323630 233785 17/05/2013 Trawl 7 In 324200 234090 Trawl 7 Out 323383 234173 17/05/2013 Trawl 8 In 323993 234278 Trawl 8 Out 323463 234453 17/05/2013 Trawl 2 In 319397 234376 Trawl 2 Out 319187 234375 18/05/2013 Trawl 6 In 322463 234180 Trawl 6 Out 322898 234134 18/05/2013 Trawl 12 In 321779 234221 Trawl 12 Out 322405 234095 18/05/2013 Trawl 3 In 319224 234124 Trawl 3 Out 319512 234099 05/06/2013 Trawl 17 In 327408 232438 Trawl 17 Out 327129 232378 05/06/2013 Trawl 16 In 327052 232352 Trawl 16 Out 327275 232578. 05/06/2013 Trawl 15 In 327118 233393 Trawl 15 Out 326719 233549 05/06/2013 Trawl 17 In 318611 234433 Trawl 17 Out 318871 234371 05/06/2013 Trawl 18 In 320414 234521 Trawl 18 Out 320436 234308

Survey Results (Figures 5.4.17 and Figure 5.4.18)

18 beam trawls were taken within the study area stretching from Alexandra Basin West to the Dublin Bay Buoy. In addition, two fyke nets were deployed on the northern edge of the shipping channel. Thirteen fish species were recovered in the trawl and just one (five-bearded rockling) in the fyke nets, where it was comparatively common. The trawls also contained at least 25 species of invertebrate mainly mobile epibenthic species such as crabs and shrimps, but also starfish, brittle stars, sea slugs etc. Table 5.4.9 presents the fish captured in trawls and fyke nets listed in decreasing order of abundance, while the full list of fish and invertebrates taken in both gear types, while the fish species captured in both gear types presented Table 5.4.10. Also included in Table 5.4.9 are the fish guilds to which each fish belongs based on their estuary usage and their feeding habits – these provide clues to the ecology of each species and it’s connectivity to estuary and near shore marine waters; these have been taken from Harrison and Kelly (2013) in most cases and elsewhere from Franco et al., 2008, Wheeler (1978) and Gibson and Ezzi (1980). Most of the fish encountered are classed as marine migrant species (MM) i.e. marine fish species that use estuaries primarily as nursery grounds but usually spawn and spend much of their adult life at sea, while often returning seasonally to estuaries when adult – these are often tolerant of a wide range of salinity (e.g. plaice and dab). The next most abundant category is Estuarine Species (ES), which are species more dependent on estuaries, and are all tolerant of a wide salinity range (e.g. Nilsson’s pipefish and sand goby). The least prominent category are the Marine Stragglers (MS) which are species which are fully marine and which do not tolerate a wide salinity range and are only occasionally found in the lower reaches of estuaries (e.g. Scaldfish).



Table 5.4.9 Fish taken in 18 beam trawls and 2 fyke nets during the current survey (May

& June 2013) listed in decreasing order of abundance

Common name Scientific name Total Numbers

Guild Estuary use

Feeding

Dab Limanda limanda 157 MM ZB

Plaice Pleuronectes platessa 89 MM

ZB

Sand Goby Pomatoschistus minutus 84 ES

ZB

Nilsson's Pipefish Syngnathus rostellatus 38 ES PV

5-bearded Rockling Ciliata mustela 22 MM ZB

Scaldfish Arnoglossus laterna 12 -/MS Z/PV

Flounder Platichthys flesus 5 MM ZB Butterfish Pholis gunnellus 5 MM ZB Dragonet Callionymus lyra 4 MS ZB

Greater Pipefish Syngnathus acus

1 ES PV

Whiting Merlangius merlangus 1 MM PV

Thornback ray Raja clavata 1 MM-MS ZB

Solenette (?) Buglossidium luteum 1 MM ZB

MM = marine migrant; MS = Marine Straggler ES = Estuarine Species, ZB = zoobenthivore, PV = piscivore, ZP = zooplanktivore

The trawl data in Table 5.4.10 shows a few gradual trends in terms of community composition as we move from the inner trawls (beginning at T1) in the port area to the outer ones toward the seaward end of the shipping channel and just beyond (toward T18). These trends are more clearly seen in the invertebrates than the fish, although the latter also show some trends. Certain invertebrates namely, the brittle star Ophiura sp., sea potato (Echinocardium cordatum), masked crab (Corystes) and the opistobranch mollusc Philine sp. were confined to the outer trawl stations i.e. T11 to T18. These were also the only sites where scaldfish (Arnoglossus laterna), classed as a Marine Straggler, were taken. It is considered likely that these trends relate to the more fully marine nature of these outer sites as well as aspects of substrate type (i.e. mainly fine sands and silty sands). The only ray species (thornback – Raja clavata) was recorded here at T18.

In the middle trawls T5 to T10 in particular, there was a notable peak in the density of the brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) taken in the shipping channel and off it; green crab (Carcinus maenas), were also prominent in these areas. This may be a feature of the more estuarine nature of these sites. Brown shrimp whose populations often compromise a wide size range and are a very important prey item for many fish species including gadoids such as cod, whiting and five-bearded rockling; smaller specimens are also taken by smaller species such as gobies. Crabs are important both as predators / scavengers and as prey.



Inner sites 6T1-T4 were notable for such species as solitary sea squirts (Ascidians) which the author has noted previously in inner port areas. Two of these sites i.e. Alexandra Basin West (T1) and Berth 52/53 basin (T4) had comparatively low fish diversity densities. Nevertheless it is clear that several benthic species are resident in this part of the study area and IFI captured a large numbers of juvenile mullet while seine netting in the marina basin at Ringsend on the southern side of the channel immediately opposite the entrance to Alexandra Basin West in October 2010 (IFI, 2010).

The epibenthic community including fish and mobile invertebrates in the outer area of the study area e.g. from about T10 to T18, bears a strong resemblance to the Pleuronectes – Limanda assemblage described by Ellis et al., (2000) as occurring in inshore waters (generally <20m deep) at both sides of the Irish Sea including off Dublin, mainly on sandy bottoms.

The benthic fish assemblage that the beam trawl would be most efficient at capturing was dominated numerically by juvenile flat fish, mainly dab and plaice, while sand goby and pipefish were also frequently encountered. It is important to point out that larger specimens and more mobile demersal species would be less likely to be taken in a small beam trawls e.g. species such as lesser-spotted dog fish, cod or large flat fish. Also, pelagic species such as herring, sprat and mackerel would also easily evade capture from this gear. However, given that dredging would be expected to have its greatest impact in general on benthic species, a beam trawl survey can been seen as a suitable survey tool in this instance, especially when supplemented with data from the IFI’s WFD fish monitoring in the Lower Liffey and Tolka Estuaries (IFI, 2008 & 2010).

6 Note that the 11 very small plaice recorded in Trawl 2 may have included some or all juvenile flounder, However, as none were retained for more detailed examination their exact identification is in doubt at this station.



Table 5.4.10 Fish and invertebrates taken in Trawls 1 to 18 and in 2 fyke nets (May and June 2013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Fykes(2)FishDab Limanda limanda 1 2 4 3 12 14 13 23 29 27 27 1 1Pla ice Peluronectes platessa 11? 9 1 2 3 1 4 7 16 1 4 27 3Flounder Plathichtys flesus 3 1 1Scaldfish Arnoglossus laterna 4 5 2 1Goby Pomatoschistus sp. 4 5 13 2 11 11 11 4 5 9 3 2 45‐bearded Rockl ing Ciliata mustela 1 1 20Ni lsson's Pipefish Syngnathus rostellatus 1 15 7 9 1 3 2Greater Pipefish S. acus 1Butterfi sh Pholis gunnellus 2 1 2Dragonet Callionmyus lyra 1 3Whiting Merlangius merlangus 1Solenette (?) Buglossidium luteum 1Thornback ray Raja clavata 1InvertebratesGreen crab Carcinus 200g 4 3 400g 500g 250g 3 1 5,900gBrown crab Cancer 1 250gHermit Crab Pagurus 1 +/+ 7 4Velvet crab Necorus 1Harbour crab Liocarcinus 1 1 11 2 2 4 2Masked Crab Corystes 1 +/+ ++Smal l spider crab Majidae 1 2Brown shrimp Crangon 25 100+ ++ 5 3,300g 1,000g 100+ 380g 600g 110g 7Shrimp Palaemon 1? 3Crustacean indet. 1Sea potatoe Echinocardium 2 2 2 2 ++Bri ttle star Ophiura 1 20 50 68 ++ 100's 100'sCommon Starfi sh Asterias 2 1 6 36 1 3 + +/+Sea squirts Ascidian indet 1250g 1200g + +Cuttle fi sh Sepiola 1 1 1 1 1Common Whelk Buccinum 2 1Necklace shel l Euspira 1Sea s lug Philine sp. 1 1 ++Sea s lug Nundbranch indetRazor clam Solenidae ++Clam Mactra stultorum 1Sea anenome Anthazoan indet 2 2 1 5Deadmans Fingers Alcyonium + + + + +Parchment worm Chaetopterus 1Sea mat FlustraUlva ++ +Laminaria Saccharina +++ +Red algae +Alga l debris 1Desmerestia +Shel l Debris ++++Weights are indicated as grams (g), otherwise numbers , presence absence as (+) depending on frequency



Spawning and Nursery Grounds off Dublin Bay

The Western Irish Sea including the waters off Dublin Bay are known to be important as spawning and nursery grounds for a number of commercial and conservation species. In a recent review paper on the subject (Ellis et al., 2012) lists the spawning and nursery grounds of species of commercial or conservation interest in that area. This updates and adds to an earlier review (Coull et al., 1998), which covered some of the same species. Table 5.4.11 lists those species given in Ellis et al, (2012) which have either spawning or nursery grounds in the waters off Dublin Bay.

Table 5.4.11 List of some important species whose spawning and or nursery grounds are located in the western Irish Sea including off Dublin Bay (from Ellis et al., 2012)

Species Spawning/Pupping Nursery Spawning (peak months)

Spurdog (Squalas achantius)

not well established High Intensity

‡All year

Tope (Galeorhinus galeus)

not well established Low Intensity

‡All year

Thornback ray (Raja clavata)

* insufficient data Low Intensity

Feb-Sept (Apr-Aug)

Spotted ray (Raja montagui)

* insufficient data Low Intensity

May-Jul

Herring (Clupea harengus)

No **High n/a

Cod (Gadus morhua)

High Intensity High Intensity

Jan-Apr (Feb-Mar)

Whiting (Merlangius merlangus)

High Intensity High Intensity

Feb-Jun

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)

High Intensity Low Intensity

Jan-Mar

Sole (Solea solea)

No Low intensity

n/a

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp) Low intensity Low intensity

Jan-Feb

*There are insufficient data on the occurrence of the egg cases or egg-bearing females in the spawning season with which to delineate spawning grounds, although these should broadly overlap with nursery grounds. ** Just north of Dublin Bay ‡Viviparous species (gravid females can be found all year)

Recreational Fisheries

Recreational sea angling in Dublin Bay from Howth to Dun Laoghaire is a popular pastime, which is growing year on year. In order to get an overview of the current situation, consultations were held with Mr. Des Chew (Sea Angling Officer with IFI for the East Coast) and with Mr. Derek Evans (based in Howth) sea angling correspondent with the Irish Times. In addition, Norman Dunlop’s 2009 ‘Guide to the Sea Angling in the Eastern Fisheries Region’ was also used for information on the Dublin Bay area. It is important to note that the prominence of particular species will fluctuate from year to year and over the medium to long-term, so for example a species commonly caught in the 1980’s may rarely be caught now and



vice versa. Also, species taken from the shore may differ from what will be taken from a boat and species taken in the lower estuaries may also differ from what will be taken on the open coast.

Main Species and Locations

Very little angling from open boats is undertaken within Dublin Bay (i.e. within a line from Howth to Dalkey Island). The main species fished tends to be mackerel, with some pollack also caught.

All the piers are fished for mackerel – this was particularly the situation in 2013 when many piers were jammed with anglers. Herring were also taken from piers and even as late as December 2013 some mackerel were still being caught, which has been attributed to the relatively mild water temperatures prevailing at the time.

Shore angling (apart from piers and walls) is not common in the bay, and in some areas north and south of the bay, angling is banned because of the perceived risk to other water users.

Best places for pollack are around Lambay and Rockabill but codling are reported to have become scarce.

Mullet are popular in July and August and sea trout appear to be making a ‘come-back’ in recent years. Both species are fished in all the Bay’s estuaries, including the Lower Liffey. 2013 was a very good year for both species.

Bass are taken mainly from shore or from kayaks. They have also become more common in recent times. Whilst bass can be taken at any time from March to November, a closed season is observed from 15th May to 15th June, as this is a key spawning time for the species.

Other species

Lesser spotted dog fish is the main elasmobranch species caught in and around the bay, while smooth hound (Mustelus spp.) another member of the shark family has become quite a common visitor in the last few years during late summer / early autumn. The species is mainly being caught (using peeler crab as bait) in deeper water outside the bay, although an occasional catch has been reported from the shore along the Great South Wall in particular, which is a popular angling mark. Spurdog, which were extremely common e.g. off Howth about two decades ago are now very rare, which accords with the fact that the species has dramatically declined in the whole Irish Sea area over the past few decades and is currently on the IUCN Red list of species and classed as critically endangered in the NE Atlantic.

Rays are not generally caught within the bay but may be fished on the offshore banks such as the Burford and Kish. Thornback seems to be the most common ray species in the area but spotted (homelyn), cuckoo and blonde rays are also know from the western Irish Sea area.

Table 5.4.12 gives a comprehensive list of the main angling locations and species taken around Dublin Bay – from the shore and boats. The data is taken from Dunlop, (2009) - the former Eastern Regional Fisheries Board’s guide to sea angling on the east coast.



Table 5.4.12 Sea angling locations and species taken in and around Dublin Bay – data from Dunlop (2009)

Location Type Species Howth boat around Ireland’s Eye: coalfish, pollack, codling, dogfish,

whiting, mackerel. In deeper water off Howth Head: ray, bullhuss, occasional spurdog.

shore from the piers: mackerel (especially) and whiting, codling, coalfish, and codling. From the rocks east of the harbour: mackerel, plaice, dabs, dogfish, pouting, whiting and codling

Bailey Lighthouse shore Wrasse, dogfish, whiting, dabs, Pollack and codling. Red Rock (on the north shore of Dublin Bay immediately west of Howth Head

shore Bass, flatfish, dogfish and occasional smooth hound

Dollymount strand shore bass, codling, eels and flounder Bull Wall shore small pollack, codling, whiting, bass and flounder. Lower Liffey shore mullet as far upriver as Heuston Station Dodder (Ringsend to Lansdown Station)

shore mullet and bass

Ringsend Powerstation

shore immature fish (mullet & bass)

Poolbeg Lighthouse shore bass and mackerel, occasional conger and smooth hounds (in May and June)

Sandymount Strand shore bass, mullet and flounder Dun Laoghaire (West Pier)

shore dabs, conger and occasional bass in the summer and whiting, codling, pouting and coalfish in autumn and winter.

Dun Laoghaire (seaward side of East Pier)

shore mackerel and pollack from May to September

Dun Laoghaire (Scotsman’s Bay)

shore mackerel are usually plentiful in season and codling, pouting, plaice, whiting and dogfish are also possible.

Dun Laoghaire - offshore

boat boats from Dun Laoghaire fish the offshore banks outside Dublin Bay including the Burford and the Kish, where codling, whiting, coalfish, pouting and ray are fairly common between May and September.

Commercial Fisheries

Within the open waters of Dublin Bay, commercial fishing is quite limited and none is undertaken within the footprint of the development i.e. within Alexandra Basin Redevelopment or the main shipping channel, due to considerations of navigational safety. Traditionally, the bay was the site of three types of commercial fishing, namely drift netting for salmon, inshore trawling (up to about the -14m CD contour) for rays and plaice, and potting for brown and velvet crabs, lobster and whelk. Drift netting for salmon ceased in January 2007 following the countrywide ban on the practice, while trawling declined back in the 1980’s due to the increase in the size of fishing vessels and the perceived lack of fish within the bay. According to the Harbour Master, pots for crab are placed on the eastern (seaward) side of the Burford Bank



during summer months and that has generally not caused any problems for navigation. There used to be lobster potting close to the Burford Bank in the past but this appears to have stopped. Some fishermen also pot for whelk in this area, an activity that is generally, though not invariably, scaled back or stopped between November and March each year, depending on the price and market demand. Potting for crab and lobster is carried out on hard ground on the northern and southern approaches to the bay around Howth and Dun Laoghaire. Vessels laying pots are all generally less than 10m in length. There are no classified production areas for bivalve molluscs within Dublin Bay so no commercial harvesting of bivalves can take place. Aquaculture is not undertaken within Dublin Bay.



Figure 5.4.18 (a) 2m beam trawl; (b) Fyke net being deployed; (c) juvenile flatfish (plaice & dab);

(d) brown shrimp (Crangon); (e) Thornback ray Trawl T18; (f) Scaldfish

A B

C D

E F



5.4.6 Potential Impacts

For ease of presentation, potential impacts are addressed under the broad headings of benthic impacts and fisheries impacts

Benthic Impacts

Habitat Removal

Alexander Basin West

The proposed development at the Alexandra Basin West will result in a gain of about 3.1ha of new subtidal habitat associated with the reduction in size of the North Wall Quay Extension and the removal the spoil deposit in the North West corner of the basin. Results from the present survey indicate that the communities present are typical of enriched, muddy sediments. The sites are dominated by large numbers of highly opportunistic species such as Capitella capitata, with low species diversity present in the area.

In addition, it is proposed to dredge Alexandra Basin West. The sediment to be removed consists of sandy muds and muds. The dominant taxa present in the Alexandra Basin West consist of highly opportunistic infauna species. The removal of these faunal communities would be considered locally severe, but minor. Recovery in the area would be expected rapidly (<1 year).

Berths 52/53 Basin

The proposed development at Berth 52/53 will result in the loss of about 4.5 ha of subtidal benthic habitat as a result of the infilling of the basin. The sediment at these sites consists of sandy muds / muddy sands and the associated faunal communities present in the area consist of highly opportunistic taxa, common throughout the inner Dublin Bay site. Although the infilling of the basin will result in the permanent removal of this habitat, the impact of this is considered minor due to the nature of the faunal community present in the area and to the new habitats which will be gained at Alexandra Basin West, which when balanced against the infilled area will result in a net overall habitat loss of approximately 1.4ha. This overall change in habitat is considered to be negligible in the context of the Lower Liffey Estuary as a whole.

Dredging of the shipping channel to -10m CD (Chart Datum)

The proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment requires the deepening of the shipping channel from -7.8m CD to -10m CD. This will include an extension of the shipping channel at its seaward end to where it meets the natural -10m CD contour. The new navigation channel will encroach into the western edge of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC Code: 003000). This cSAC has been designated for the Annex II species Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and the marine habitat – reefs.

The faunal community identified in the inner section of the dredge channel, within the port area, is dominated by highly opportunistic species. These species are expected to rapidly re-colonise the seabed commencing immediately following cessation of dredging, resulting in a rapid recovery to the pre-dredge community within about 12 months. Faunal communities identified in outer Dublin Bay are similar to those identified in the surveys of Walker & Rees



(1980) from 1971 and 1972, which points to the stable nature of the communities present in the area.

Although dredging occurred in 2012 (See Figure 5.4.19 for the extent of dredging operations), results from the present survey indicate that there are no differences in community structure between sites subjected to dredging and adjacent sites which had not been dredged. This indicates that the faunal communities present in the bay recover quickly to pre-dredge levels following cessation of dredging.

The proposed extension to the existing shipping channel will result in the temporary removal of the benthic invertebrate community associated with the surface layer of 67.5 ha of soft-sediment from the cSAC. The area to be removed consists of fine muddy sands and fine sands, and is typical of the benthos found across a large area of Dublin Bay. Recovery of the benthic communities in this area will commence immediately following cessation of dredging and is expected to take about two years. The overall size of this cSAC is approximately 27,315.5 ha, so the temporary disturbance to the benthic community is less than 0.25% (Figure 5.4.20) of the area of the cSAC and would be considered minor. This coupled with the temporary nature of the impact, means the expected impacts would be considered negative, though minor and temporary in extent.

No reef habitats were identified in or adjacent to the area to be dredged. The proposed capital dredging scheme will therefore have no impact on this qualifying interest of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island candidate Special Area of Conservation.

Figure 5.4.19 Areas subjected to maintenance dredging in 2012



Figure 5.4.20 Area of cSAC to be temporarily disturbed due to the extension of the shipping channel

Habitat Disturbance Due to Dredging

Results from the hydrodynamic modelling (Chapter 9 Coastal processes) indicate that there will be little significant change in the tidal regime, wave climate or sediment transport regime in Dublin Bay due to the deepening of the shipping channel. The most significant impacts will occur in the area around the entrance channel at the approaches to the Bull walls and harbour channels. In these areas, the modelling indicates a reduction in tidal velocities across parts of the area, with increases identified along the northern edge of the channel. In areas where there is a reduction in velocity, deposition of muddy materiel would be expected. The impact on the faunal communities present in the area would be considered negligible, due to the nature of the highly opportunistic species present. In areas where minor increases in velocities are expected, little change in the faunal communities are expected as the velocities identified in the hydrodynamic modelling fall within the range identified across the site for the existing habitat type in the area. Accordingly, only localised changes in faunal community present may occur but with no change to the existing habitat type.

Impacts Associated with Dredge Spoil Disposal

Footprint of the dumpsite

The main impact associated with dredge spoil disposal is smothering of the benthos following deposition of large volumes of inert sediment on the seabed. As previously noted the sediments that will be dredged will consist primarily of sands in the middle and outer parts of the bay, and silts along the inner port channel.

The sandy sediment to be collected from the outer areas of Dublin Bay are similar in nature to the sediments identified in large parts of the dump site and for this reason the recovery of benthic communities present at the site will proceed more rapidly than if there were large



differences in composition between the spoil and the sediment already at the site. This feature of disposal site recovery has been noted in several studies reported in the scientific literature (Smith & Rule, 2001; Ware et al., 2010; Bolam et al., 2006).

In contrast, the deposition of silt from the inner parts of the shipping channel will result in a more pronounced impact in terms of smothering with the likelihood that few, if any, invertebrates from the existing community below the deposited spoil will be able to burrow vertically through the deposited layers, thus leading to a more pronounced drop in the diversity of species present and their density and biomass. Hydrodynamic factors associated with the disposal site will mean that the finer sediments will disperse away from the disposal site, due to a combination of tidal and wind-driven forcing, leaving sands and coarser materials on the seabed. Once this occurs, it is expected that recovery of the benthic community to a sand community will follow.

The dumpsite is a dispersive, site, which was used in 2012 for the disposal of 650,000m3 of dredge spoil from Dublin Port. The depths at the disposal site range from -12m CD. to -24 m CD. The peak tidal flow recorded at the site is 0.82 m/s (1.59 knots). Surveys undertaken elsewhere at dispersive sites, i.e. sites which are subjected to regular physical stress (such as sediment bed load movement, wave action, strong currents) indicate that the benthic communities present have a higher resilience to disposal events (Bolam & Rees 2003; Bolam et al., 2011). The fauna identified at the Dublin site contains species common throughout the bay. Dublin Bay is a shallow coastal environment with biological communities well adapted to frequent disturbances due to water and sediment movement. Results from previous surveys highlight the stable nature of the biological communities throughout the embayment, including the disposal site and reflect the adaptive nature of the fauna within Dublin Bay to hydrodynamic disturbance.

Recovery at a dredge spoil disposal site will follow a typical pattern. After spoil deposition, macroinvertebrate species diversity, abundance and biomass will be reduced. If the sediment deposited on the site is similar in nature to the native sediment, and the layer of deposition is thin (<15cm) then vertical migration through the sediment of existing fauna will occur (Wilbur et al., 2007; Fredette & French, 2004, Maurer et al., 1981 (a), Maurer et al., 1981 (b), Maurer et al., 1982). This will be supplemented by lateral migration of mobile fauna from adjacent areas and through larval settlement from the plankton.

Where the dredge spoil contains finer sediments than the native sediment, then recovery occurs in a number of stages. In high dynamic areas, such as those identified in the dump site, the silt fraction initially settles with the sand fraction. Vertical migration through predominantly mud sediments would be reduced and recolonisation of these sediments would be through lateral migration of mobile species and larval settlement from the plankton. Initial colonisation will be by small, fast growing, opportunistic species, especially small polychaete and oligochaete worms. Due to the dynamic nature of the site, the finer material will disperse away from the site in under a year leaving coarser sandier sediment behind which will gradually revert, through the process of re-colonisation, to a community more closely resembling that which pertained before disposal, i.e. typical of the dominant substrate and the prevailing hydrodynamic regime.

The area has been subjected to regular deposition of sediment over many decades. Kennedy (2008) recorded high IQI values for the site, indicating Good Status under the Water Framework Directive, which reflects the ability of the site to rapidly recover following dredge spoil disposal. In view of the dispersive nature of the site and the findings of previous studies which recorded a fairly typical community for the habitats present, despite regular spoil disposal, it is considered that the impacts associated with the deposition of 5.9 million m3 of



mixed sediment over a six year period will be temporary negative in nature, principally affecting the direct footprint of the disposal site, and that substantial recovery can be expected to occur within 12 months of the cessation of disposal.

Far-field deposition

Modelling results for the deposition of the dispersed finer sediment fraction in the spoil predicted the deposition of small amounts of fine material along intertidal stretches of the North Bull and southern shores of Dublin Bay, as well as shallow coastal stretches to the north of the shipping channel. The levels of deposition predicted by the modelling are very small, with values of <0.3 g m-2 of fine sediment (see Chapter 9) following each 6 month disposal event. Intertidal fauna, by their nature are subjected to regular sediment movement, and the deposition of such small amounts of fine sediment is expected to have no significant impact on the intertidal fauna in the affected areas. Similarly, due to the adaptive nature of shallow coastal communities, the deposition of such small levels of fine sediment along parts of the outer subtidal stretches of Dublin Bay is expected to have no significant adverse impact. The far-field deposition of silt would therefore not have an adverse effect on the reef habitat within the Rocabill to Dalkey cSAC within the outer Dublin Bay.

Fisheries Impacts

Habitat Removal

The proposed development involves the removal of part of the existing berthing area at the North Wall Quay Extension at the entrance to Alexandra Basin West and its replacement with a new berthing installation covering a smaller plan area. Other changes include the removal of a spoil area in the North West corner of the basin and the demolition of a loading area that currently projects into the basin from its western edge. A new line of berthing dolphins will be installed in the basin. These combined changes will result in a gain in the area of subtidal benthic habitat in the basin of 3.1ha. In addition, the Berth 52/53 basin farther east will be infilled as part of the development resulting in a loss in the area of subtidal habitat of 4.5ha of the benthic habitat. The trawl survey undertaken as part of the current proposal indicates that these two areas had low diversity of widely occurring fish species. Moreover, the small net loss of habitat (~1.4ha) considered in the context of the Lower Liffey Estuary as a whole, indicates these changes will have an imperceptible affect on the overall fish population in the area.

Temporary Habitat Disturbance

The dredging of the basins and the main shipping channel out to the -10m CD contour will result in the surface layers of sediment being removed for disposal at the licensed dump site immediately east of the bay. The surface layer contains all the associated macroinvertebrate infauna which most of the more abundant species taken in trawls namely dab, plaice and sand gobies feed on. It is unlikely that the dredging will remove all surface mobile epifauna but a significant proportion may be entrained by the dredger; these would include brown shrimp (Crangon crangon), crabs (Carcinus, Liocarcinus and Pagurus) in particular as well as brittle stars (Ophiura), sea potatoes (Echinocardium) etc. This means that the quality of the feeding in the dredged area for adult and juvenile fish will be significantly reduced following the dredging.

Dredging disturbs the bottom thereby re-suspending sediment from the bottom and lifting it into the water column for dispersion by the current. In addition, overflow from the dredger during the hopper filling process gives rise to increased suspended solids in the wake of the



dredger. These processes tend to give rise to an area of increased sedimentation of coarser material (sand) in the near-field i.e. within 200-500m of the dredger. Finer material (silt and clay particles) from the dredging process will disperse over a far wider field but at much lower concentrations. The effect of this increased near-field sedimentation will tend to give rise to some faunal smothering depending on the species impacted. In general, where the sediment material is the same in nature as the bed material on which it’s being deposited, the lower the impact is on the resident benthic fauna.

Immediately, post dredging fish and invertebrate predators will move into the dredged areas and scavenge on dead or damaged invertebrates and fish, the area affected providing a temporary local source of food. As soon as the dredging ceases the affected areas will begin the process of re-colonisation. Re-colonisation of dredged areas usually occurs more rapidly in areas of good tidal movement over finer grained sediments (sands and silts), as in the study area, compared to sites with coarser substrates and areas of slacker flow. The dredged area will rapidly recolonise in terms of species number and density over 1-2 seasons, with near full biomass recovery taking a bit longer, perhaps 2-3 years. Such areas initially tend to be re-colonised by residual fauna remaining after the dredging and adults and juveniles from adjoining area arriving as mobile immigrants or transported during storm events. The other main mechanism will see settlement of a broad range of species as larvae from the plankton.

In the first season post dredging small, rapidly growing invertebrates, mainly polychaete worms often colonise recently dredged areas of fine sediment, especially, although not exclusively in the inner, more estuarine sites. These worms form a very important food resource for juvenile flatfish, in particular plaice, and therefore the expected dip in the quality of food resources for the nursery aspect of the dredged channel may only last for a single season. Taken in the context of Dublin Bay as a whole, the temporary reduction in quality of feeding along the dredged channel will only constitute a minor adverse impact, given that extensive areas of the same habitat types occur throughout the bay, which will provide all the same range of benthic prey species for fish and invertebrate predators. It should be noted that the dredging will be carried out more or less evenly over six years, with about 15-20% of the area being dredged each year. Thus, while the next section is being dredged, the area dredged the previous year will already be undergoing recovery; this will help to dampen the degree of the impact on fish in any given year.

Fish Entrainment

Direct uptake of fish by the drag-head of trailer suction dredgers has been shown to occur in several studies, mainly undertaken in the west coast of the United States. These studies and some limited work in Europe have identified certain species and groups as being more susceptible or potentially more susceptible than others to entrainment. As yet however there isn’t a model that can predict the number of fish likely to be entrained during dredging. Taking a precautionary approach, Drabble (2012) suggests that potentially all fish taken in a beam trawl survey in an aggregate dredging area in the English Channel would be entrained at the same rate by a trailer suction hopper dredger working the same area. If that were the case in the present study area, then we could expect, juvenile, flatfish, sand goby and pipefish to be the most frequently entrained species, with others such as dragonet, butterfish, five-bearded rockling and whiting to be taken in smaller numbers. Rays, such as the thornback recorded in the trawl survey would also be susceptible to entrainment, although their frequency would likely be much lower, reflecting their comparatively low numbers in the environment. This assumes that all fish are equally likely to be entrained and takes no account of the ability of a species to evade capture e.g. based on their size and swimming burst speed, their hearing sensitivity or any other sensory mechanism that might give them some warning of the approach of the drag head. Pelagic species are generally less susceptible due to their



normally more elevated swimming position in the water column, although they can also be entrained. Species with good hearing such as herring may avoid the dredging area for this reason. The behaviour of some species however makes them particularly vulnerable, for example the habit of sandeel of burying itself in sediment after dark, during conditions of low light and during late autumn and winter for hibernation, means that they are likely to be more susceptible to entrainment in areas where they occur. It isn’t known whether there are any sand eel within the dredge area because they are not amenable generally to capture by trawls and whilst they can be taken in grab samples if they are buried in sand, they are generally not buried during the day when such surveys are normally conducted. The exact sediment preferences of the lesser sand eel (Ammodytes tobianus) which is the species occurring in Dublin Bay are not known, however, those of the closely related (A. marinus) indicate a preference for medium to coarse sand being absent in sediment with more than 10% silt/clay, and declining in densities at sited containing between 10 and 2% silt clay (Wright et al., 2000). This would suggest that sand eel are very probably absent from all the inner dredging areas from the East Link Bridge to the end of the port quays and that much of the outer area is also sub-optimal because of the high proportion of fines in the inner areas and the high proportion of very fine sands at many of the middle and outer sites.

Of the elasmobranchs that use the area the most likely to be impacted would be lesser spotted dogfish, mainly because it is believed to be the most common species in the bay and feed demersally. Smooth hound (Mustelus spp.) are reported as more common in the area in recent years and it is possible that individuals of this species could be entrained, perhaps more so in the outer areas than the inner, if they are still present in the autumn, when it is proposed to commence dredging each year. Other small shark species are at much lower risk of entrainment by virtue of their likely lower densities in the area. Of the ray species in the western Irish Sea, thronback (Raja clavata), spotted / homelyn (R. montagui), cuckoo (Leucoraja naevus) and blonde (R. brachyura) have all been recorded off Dublin in research trawl surveys some also by recreational fishermen and all therefore are potentially vulnerable to entrainment. This is probably least likely in the case of blonde ray, which seems to occur farther off shore than the other three species and perhaps most likely in the case of thornback which seem to be present in highest number in the area and one of which was taken (1 immature individual) in a trawl near the Harbour Buoy (T18) during the current study. Entrainment of rays, and other elasmobranchs is thought most likely to occur, in the mid to outer section of the proposed channel dredging.

Traditionally, one of the biggest concerns regarding dredger entrainment has been in the case of valuable migratory species, e.g. salmon. However, while these are known to be susceptible to entrainment, this appears to be mainly in narrow estuarine/riverine channels. Were this to occur in the current development, it would most likely be the case in the lower estuary of the Liffey from upstream of Alexandra Basin where the channel narrows to about 180m wide in places, down past Alexandra Basin out to the end of the main port area beyond Berth 52/53 where the channel widens to around 400m continuing out to the Poolbeg Light. The main period of concern would be during the smolt run between March and the end of May. This risk can be mitigated by avoiding dredging during these months.

Although there don’t appear to be any records in the literature of river lamprey being entrained by hopper dredgers, it is conceivable that they could be affected in the inner areas of the navigation channel as they were recorded in the Liffey Estuary by IFI in October 2010, presumably on their inward migration. They migrate over an extended window from late autumn and can also arrive in river during the winter, so that they would be potentially vulnerable to entrainment in the inner section of the navigation channel within the port as dredging would be ongoing during this period. The significance of this risk is unknown and difficult to estimate in the absence of more detailed information on the numbers entering and their distribution across the channel as they migrate. If they are at risk, then this will be



greatest in the narrowest portion of the channel upstream of Alexandra Basin diminishing with distance downstream as the channel widens. Furthermore, as dredging in this area will be confined to just one season, only one returning cohort will be exposed to risk and it is unlikely for this reason, that that will pose a significant risk at the population level for the species in the Liffey.

In addition to fish, most mobile epibenthic species, especially, brown shrimp, crabs and starfish are all likely to be entrained in the path of the dredger.

In terms of significance, the loss of fish and invertebrate biomass associated with entrainment is difficult to assess without knowing how many individuals are entrained and how these numbers compare with the populations of the same species in the wider area. Studies that have attempted to assess this have usually indicated relatively low rates when compared to total populations (i.e. from less than <1% to ~6%) (Reine et al., 1998; McGraw and Armstrong, 1998). If the assumption is made that the majority of the bottom dwelling fish taken in trawls during the current survey are likely to be entrained from the footprint of the dredger and the immediate adjoining areas, it is considered, nevertheless, that this would constitute a minor to moderate impact overall, because the bulk of the species considered most likely to be entrained (especially, juvenile flatfish and sand gobies) are very common not only in the Dublin Bay area but all along the very extensive shallow sandy areas off Dublin and from Dublin north to Dundalk Bay and south off parts of the Wicklow and Wexford coasts. Moreover, as the dredging will be undertaken over a period of six years, the active dredging footprint will cover, on average, about 15-20% of the channel area in any given year, thereby reducing the overall impact of the dredging operation in any one year.

Elasmobranchs are considered more vulnerable than most fish species in North West European waters because of their slow rates of maturation and small brood sizes relative to most bony fish, which makes them prone to over exploitation by commercial fishing fleets. In light of this fact, several species, e.g. spurdog (Squalus achantias) and large skate species are now categorised as endangered and there is a ban on harvesting several species for this reason. Most of the species likely to use the development area in any numbers, however, are those which are not endangered and which are able to sustain a degree of commercial exploitation e.g. lesser-spotted dogfish, smooth hound and thornback ray and a degree of entrainment of these species, is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts at a population level.

Suspended Sediment Plumes

Dredgers generate plumes of elevated suspended solids in their wakes, which are greater when there is overflow from the hopper, which occurs when a dredger is attempting to increase the load in the hold (hopper). These will vary depending on local hydrodynamic conditions, the depth, and the type of material being dredged and the rate of dredging, among other factors. In general, suspended solids concentrations are highest within the first 50m to 100m of a dredger (up to several hundred milligrams per litre and more) and with the highest levels concentrated in the middle and bottom layers of the water column. As the distance from the dredger increases the suspended solids load drops off very rapidly, and although a turbidity plume of the finest material may still be visible for up to a kilometre or more down current from the dredger, the actual amounts of solids in suspension tend to be very low beyond the first 100 to 200m. The higher the amount of sand in the material being dredged the more rapid the drop in suspended solids concentrations and the smaller the extent of the plume.



Suspended solids can have the following impacts on fish in the environment:

(i) Behavioural - altered swimming behaviour, breakdown in schooling, altered foraging rates and success, avoidance (lateral and or vertical);

(ii) Sub-lethal - physiological changes including increased blood sugar, increased blood cortisol, increased coughing response and reduced feeding success all of which are considered signs of stress or alarm. Repeated stress can lead to reduced growth rates; and

(iii) Lethal - direct mortality due to severe gill damage.

The effects of suspended solids depends principally on a combination of concentration and duration of exposure. The nature of the solids involved is also a factor with larger angular silt and sand particles considered more damaging than smaller particles.

The higher the concentration of solids and the longer the exposure period, the higher the risk is of adverse impacts for fish.

Direct mortalities from high suspended solids in nature is likely to be rare because in experiments these effects are not normally observed until concentrations of tens or hundreds of thousands of milligrams per litre of suspended solids are in question and these levels rarely occur in nature (Alabaster and Lloyd 1980, McDonald & Jensen 1996).

As fish are mobile, they can and do avoid turbidity plumes e.g. herring and cod: (Westerberg et al, 1996) and sprat: Shelton (1973) quoted in Moore 1977. Any outward migrating Atlantic salmon smolts are also likely to avoid sediment plumes should they arise as a result of construction activities as has been demonstrated for other salmon species. For example, in laboratory experiments the onset of avoidance was demonstrated in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) at concentrations at around 300mg/l when 1% of the test animals surfaced in test vessels. This effect didn’t become pronounced (i.e. affected individuals went above 5% of the test population) until concentrations reached >2,500mg/l of suspended solids (Servizi & Martens, 1992). However the authors indicate that there is a greater tendency for lateral avoidance than vertical avoidance movements at lower solids concentrations. This can be explained by the fact that fish which surface have a greater risk of predation by avian predators e.g. gulls and terns.

Fish are also known to differ in their response to suspended solids levels with some species more tolerant than others. For example bottom dwelling species such as flat fish tend to be more tolerant of solids exposure than pelagic species (Moore, 1977), presumably because they are more likely to be routinely exposed to more turbid conditions close to the sediment–water interface. Lethal suspended solids concentrations for estuarine fish for exposure of 1-2 days can vary from as low 500-600mg/l for very sensitive species to >10,000 mg/l for tolerant species (Wilber and Clarke, 2001). In the current project it is unlikely that individual fish will be exposed to very high suspended solids (i.e. >100mg/l) for extended periods because the dredger will be moving and therefore the area of peak suspends solids will also be constantly moving. Furthermore, the sediments in the main channel are generally only mildly contaminated or uncontaminated. For this reason, resuspension of dissolved contaminants during dredging is not a concern. The time of the greatest perceived risk would be during the outward migration of smolts from the Liffey, though the risk even to these will be low, due to the likely avoidance behaviour referred to above, combined with short exposure periods where elevated suspended solids concentrations are encountered. Nevertheless, a timing restriction on dredging during the smolt run is recommended as a precaution in the upper narrower channel i.e. from the East Link Bridge to the seaward end of the north bank port area. This is the area where the channel is at its narrowest and the sediments generally have the highest



mud contents and contaminant levels, as compared to the middle and outer sections of the channel. Adult returning fish would be less sensitive to suspended solids than juveniles and their homing instincts would likely take them around or through any turbidity plumes.

Spoil Disposal

Turbidity Impacts

A review of the turbidity generated in open water dredge spoil disposal sites (Truitt, 1988) showed that significantly elevated turbidity levels are generally confined to the lower 15-20% of the water column depth, declining by orders of magnitude toward the surface. Turbidity levels at all depths decline rapidly, approaching background levels within a matter of minutes to tens of minutes, with the bottom levels declining slowest. In view of the rapid dissipation of water column turbidity after each disposal event, it isn’t expected that this aspect of the operation will give rise to any significant adverse impacts for fish in the area, due to the very short period of exposure to elevated turbidity.

Post disposal benthic community and implications for fish feeding

The benthic community which initially colonises dredge spoil disposal sites is often dominated by rapidly growing, small-bodied infauna, situated close to the sediment surface, especially if the material being disposed is high in organic matter such as the sediments from the inner channel area. The high density of these invertebrates can significantly increase the secondary production of disposal sites providing a beneficial increase in food for benthic feeding fish, especially juveniles (see Lunz 1983 quoted in LaSalle et al., 1991). This effect, should it be a feature of the current site, will diminish with distance from the disposal area along the main axis of sediment transport from the site. These trends will tend to diminish in subsequent seasons as the pre-dumping benthic infaunal community begins to re-establish. This effect is less likely to be a feature of the spoil from the middle and outer channel, which has a lower organic matter content and therefore less likely to give an initial boost in benthic biomass. Nevertheless, fish will continue to forage at the site post dumping even if the macroinvertebrate densities are reduced.

Commercial Fishing

There is very little if any commercial fishing taking place within the dredge spoil disposal site, with the possible exception of some whelk potting toward the end of the season around November. More active potting takes place from the seaward side of the Burford Bank, to the east of the dumpsite and it is unlikely therefore that the dredge disposal will give rise to any adverse impact for commercial fishing in the area.

Recreational Fishing

Recreational fishing doesn’t take place directly within the navigation channel or basins earmarked for dredging. Fishing can be undertaken from the southern shore where access is available between Ringsend and the Poolbeg Lighthouse. However, this is still at some distance from the edge of the dredge channel and is unlikely to be adversely affected by the dredging. Moreover, the dredging will not commence until September/October in any given year thereby missing the main summer angling season. The level of recreational fishing from boats in the area of the disposal site is unknown but is more likely off the nearby Burford Bank.



For this reason it is thought unlikely that dredge spoil disposal at the site will adversely impact any recreational fishing in the area.

Piling Noise

The construction phase of the project will require extensive piling throughout Alexandra Basin West and at the entrance to the Berth 52/53 basin. The piling will be required for new quay walls and for new mooring dolphins and may entail a mixture of pile types including sheet piles, H-piles and tubular piles up to 1.6m in diameter. The final pile configuration will relate to the structural strength required for quay walls adjacent to berths. In this situation circular king piles are considered preferable than king piles of the H-type. Piles driven in water give rise to noise levels normally well above ambient levels. Circular piles such as those which may be used in the project give rise to lower noise outputs compared to similar sized H-type piles, with a significant positive relationship between the diameter of the pile and the level of noise output.

Impact pile driving entails use of a heavy weight (hammer) to ram piles into the substrate at a strike rate of about 1 every 1.5 seconds. The noise generated is intermittent consisting of discrete noise outputs for each hammer impact. The sound generated also has several features, which characterise it. Firstly it is a loud sound i.e. it generally has a high amplitude. It is also a sharp sound with a very short rise time to reach peak pressure (measured in milliseconds). It has a broad spectrum i.e. the sound is spread over a wide range of frequencies from a few hertz (Hz) to several thousand hertz i.e. several kilohertz (kHz). Sound is measured in units of pressure i.e. Pascals. Sound is generally expressed in decibels (dB), which is a log scale of the ratio between a reference pressure to the actual measured pressure. The formula for SPL (Sound Pressure Level) in decibels is: 20*log10 (p/p ref), where p ref is the reference pressure of 1 µPa in water. A 6 dB increase or decrease in sound equates to a doubling or halving of the SPL respectively. Thus while 160 dB equates to 100 Pa, 166 dB is 200Pa and 154 dB is equivalent to just 50 Pa.

When attempting to assess the impact of pile-driving sound on fish, scientists have used a number of metrics to analyse the sound in a way that can be correlated with an effect in fish. In general the effects include: a range of non-auditory tissue damage up to mortality, auditory tissue damage, which results in a reduction in the hearing ability which may be permanent (know as PTS or Permanent Threshold Shift), a temporary reduction in hearing sensitivity (TTS or Temporary Threshold Shift) or finally behavioural affects, e.g. startle or avoidance responses. TTS, because fish recover from it, usually within a day or less, is not considered an injury (although it may or may not have significance for the affected species).

In order to assess the effect of impact piling noise on fish, scientists turned to published experiments assessing the impacts of underwater explosions on several species of fish of different sizes (Yelverton, 1975). The sound pressure output from explosions has similarities to that of impact piling, i.e. very rapid rise time to peak pressure and high peak pressure. In the case of underwater explosions, however, the pressures are generally much higher and the rise times shorter than in impact piling and so they are a conservative proxy for the impacts from the latter. Injuries associated with underwater explosions included swim bladder damage and damage to other organs. An important feature of the impacts are that the size of the fish affected is an important determiner of whether mortality is likely to occur, such that smaller fish are more likely to be killed or injured than larger ones. Recent studies have demonstrated similar injuries when fish are exposed in a laboratory setting to sound output equivalent to impact piling noise over a range of sound levels (Popper et al., 2013).



Another way to quantitatively describe the time history of a pressure signal generated by a pile driving pulse is to describe the total sound energy in the pressure signal. In this fashion, sound energy associated with a pile driving strike or pulse, is characterized by the SEL (Sound Exposure Level). SEL is the constant sound level in one second, which has the same amount of acoustic energy as the original time-varying sound (i.e., the total energy of a pulse). SEL is calculated by summing the cumulative pressure squared over the time of the event; it is given in dB re 1µPa2-sec. Another way of representing the sound output from pile driving is to add all the SEL outputs from individual pile strikes for the total number of strikes required to drive the pile. The latter is termed the cumulative SEL (SEL cumulative) and is calculated as 10*log10 (# of strikes) + single strike SEL. It can also be used to calculate the total sound energy output from several pilings if more than one pile is driven in a working day.

There have been several recommendations made in recent years about what level of sound (using the metrics above) from piling operations that would provide adequate protection to prevent auditory and non-auditory tissue damage to fish (Popper et al., 2006, Carlson et al., 2007).

Following consultation between specialists and the responsible agencies, in June 2008 several US federal and state agencies with responsibility for transport and environment on the Pacific coastal states adopted the following interim noise level criteria designed to protect listed fish species (including several species of Pacific salmon) from the impact of piling (Table 5.4.13).

Table 5.4.13 Interim noise level criteria adopted by US state agencies also the Pacific coast (California & Washington State) to protect listed fish species (June 2008)

Peak 206 dB (for all size of fish)

Cumulative SEL 187 dB - for fish size of two grams or greater.

183 dB - for fish size of less than two grams.

The recommended measuring distance for these levels is 10m, due to the technical and safety difficulties of measuring pile-driving sound output at source (i.e. 1m).

Currently, there are no regulations governing the levels of piling noise in Ireland to protect fish and so, as a conservative measure to protect Annex II species using the Liffey in the area of the proposed development, the interim criteria set out in Table 5.4.13 are being used as a guide against which to assess the potential significance of the likely sound output from the proposed piling.

The impact of piling on fish

There are several reports in the literature on fish mortality and injury due to impact piling although there are very significant methodological difficulties associated with trying to link a measure of sound output from piling with degrees of damage to fish of different sizes and species.

Predicting the sound from piling

The sound output from pile driving is determined mainly by the size/diameter of pile and the size of hammer. However several other factors are also important and are generally site-



specific e.g. the nature of the material into which the pile is driven, the depth of substrate to which the pile is to be driven, whether a pile is being driven in water or beside water, the water depth and whether some sound mitigation / dampening device is being used. As a general rule, in the case of tubular steel piles, the larger the diameter of the pile the higher the sound output. The harder the substrate into which the pile is being driven the greater the output. If a pile is being driven into dry ground adjacent water the amount of sound transmitted through the adjoining water is lower than if the pile were being driven within the water column. It has also been shown that in shallow waters sound pressure waves of lower frequencies may not be propagated so that a portion at least of the broad spectrum sound energy from the piling may not be propagated. Given these multifactorial influences, the sound output from any given pile-driving operation is hard to predict. In order to assist in gauging what the piling operation might give rise to in terms of noise output a number of US Highway Agencies (Principally California and Washington State) have compiled extensive field measurements of the sound outputs for coastal and riverine pile-driving operations, since about 2000, most of which have employed the sound metrics (i.e. peak pressure, and SEL, though less often SEL cumulative also). Anon (2012)

Using this database, the description which most closely matched the current project was for a 1.5 metre (60-inch) steel CISS pile in water less than 5m in depth. The database gives the peak SPL as 210 dB and the SEL as 185 dB re 1µPa2-s. These data are slightly lower in terms of noise output, all things being equal, than we might expect in the project current location as the pile diameter in the database is a bit smaller and the water shallower, both factors which would tend to give a slightly higher output. The database doesn’t give a cumulative SEL for the total sound output associated with driving a pile. This can be easily calculated once the number of strikes required to drive the pile is known. Unfortunately, we do not have an estimate of the number of impacts it is expected it will take to drive a 1.63m diameter pile (40m long) in Alexandra Basin. For the purpose of the current exercise a range of 500, 1,000 and 5,000 strikes are given as a possible range (i.e. 12.5, 25 and 125 minutes of piling respectively, assuming a hammer strike every 1.5 seconds). These would give rise to the following three cumulative SEL results: 212, 215, 222 dB re 1µPa2-sec. As can be seen these are all higher than the interim criteria presented in Table 5.4.13. To gauge the significance of these predicted cumulative noise outputs, the distance required for these levels to attenuate to the target level (i.e. the criteria of 187 dB) can be roughly estimated using two interrelated formula and a number of assumptions.

Formula 1 Transmission loss (dB) = F*log(D1/D2)-

Where:

D1 = The distance at which the targeted transmission loss occurs;

D2 = The distance from which transmission loss is calculated

(usually 10 metres);

F = A site-specific attenuation factor based on several conditions, including water depth, pile type, pile length, substrate type, and other factors; and

Transmission loss (TL) = The initial sound pressure level (dB) produced by a sound source (i.e., pile driving) minus the ambient sound pressure level or a target sound pressure level (e.g., the injury threshold for salmon). TL also can be thought of as the change in sound pressure level between D1 and D2.s



To solve for the distance at which the ambient noise level or threshold sound pressure level will be reached, solve for D2 in the following equation :

Formula 2 D2 =D1/(10TL/F)

In the absence of a known F (i.e. the attenuation constant), which usually varies between 5 and 30, it is suggested that 15 be used for this gauging exercise (Anon 2009).

Using these formulae, the distance required to attenuate cumulative SEL levels from near the pile to the target level (187) would amount to the following: cumulative SEL 212 = 463m, cumulative SEL 215 = 763m and cumulative SEL 222 = 2,151m. If we take it that the edge of the Liffey nearest to the Alexandra Basin is the nearest point to the piling at which potentially susceptible Annex II species would be passing (i.e. salmon smolts, adult salmon and lamprey), these calculations suggest that they would come into the ambit of noise levels that could possibly give rise to injuries. This is because only in the north west corner of the basin would the distance to the edge of the Liffey exceed 463m, and this also presupposes that the piles in that area could be driven in 500 strikes i.e. about 12.5 minutes of uninterrupted piling. The noise from all other piles regardless of the time required to drive them, (i.e. 500-5000 strikes) would be higher than the interim guidelines given in Table 5.4.13. Clearly, if the higher numbers of pile strikes presented (i.e. 1,000 or 5,000) were required and at the higher number it would potentially require up to 2.2km from the piles for the potential for injury to fish to fully abate.

It is important to note that these data are (i) conservative and (ii) only crudely take the size of the fish into account. Work by Carlson et al, 2007, predicted that the cumulative SEL required to cause non-auditory injury to a fish increased linearly with the mass of the fish in the range 0.5g to 200g following the formula: Cumulative SEL = 186.47 + 11.53*log10(mass). Using this formula we can estimate the Cumulative SEL below which injury would be unlikely to occur to salmon smolts, river lamprey and adult salmon if these were conservatively estimated to weigh 15g, 45g and 200g respectively for each of the pile strike number estimated to be required to drive the large piles in ARB (column 2 Table 5.4.14) and using the Formulae 1 & 2 above, the distance required to attenuate the source noise from pies requiring 500, 1000 or 5000 strikes can be estimated for each size of fish (columns 3, 4 and 5 in Table 5.4.14).

Table 5.4.14 An estimate of the distance in metres (columns 3-5) required to attenuate pile driving noise at 3 decibel levels depending on the size of the target species (columns 1 and 2) and depending on the number of impacts required to drive a 1.5m diameter pile. Calculations based on Carlson et al., (2007)

Species Cumulative SEL below which non-auditory injury is not predicted to occur based on Cumulative SEL = 186.47 + 11.53*log10(mass) (from Carlson et al., 2007)

Attenuation distance (m) required to reach the no injury cumulative SEL level in Column 2 based on 500-5000 impact strikes 500 strikes

1,000 strikes

5,000 strikes

Salmon smolt (15g) 200 63 100 295 River lamprey (45g) 206 25 40 116 Adult salmon (200g) 213 9 14 40



It can be seen from Table 5.4.14 that the predicted distances within which fish in this size range (15g to 200g) would potentially be injured by piling noise, is much less than predicted by the more stringent interim guideline cumulative SEL values given in Table 5.4.14, as the former take the size of larger fish into account. That may be because when the 2008 interim guidelines were being drawn up they were to cover all waters including those in which the fry and young juveniles of several protected species occur i.e. very small fish. Furthermore, the work of Carlson et al., (2007), while well grounded theoretically, hasn’t yet been tested in controlled laboratory experiments and should therefore be treated with caution. These points notwithstanding, what the data in Table 5.4.14 shows is that, depending on the number of strikes required to drive a particular pile, if it is situated at more than those distances from the river, it shouldn’t cause any non-auditory injury to fish of the sizes given in the table. Clearly, if the fish of these species and life stages were bigger (which the majority probably will be), then they would be less likely again to suffer injury.

As a general rule it has been shown that fish without swim bladders are far less likely to suffer noise induced injury. Recent studies in which flatfish (which don’t have swim bladders) were assessed at noise levels which caused a wide range of injuries to salmon smolts, showed no internal or external traumatic injuries. The absence of a swim bladder would also be expected to confer a significant degree of protection to lamprey against sound pressure related injuries.

The other feature of the interim guidelines in Table 5.4.13 is that they assume that the fish remain in the same place for the duration of the sound exposure, whereas the species of particular interest to us would be moving during that period, unless they were being held up due to environmental conditions such as low water levels, as in the case of adult salmon. Also, lampreys are known to rest under rocks and riverbanks during the day, which might make them more susceptible, were they to exhibit such behaviour within the study reach. While noting the latter exceptions, as these species are actively moving through the sound-impacted zone, then depending on their speed and the time taken to drive a pile, they would likely be exposed to a smaller amount of sound energy (i.e. a lower cumulative SEL) than if they were resident in the impacted zone, as allowed for in the interim criteria (Table 5.4.13).

Conclusions and recommendations

The proposed project requires the driving of large circular steel piles to considerable depths below the bed of the estuary including along the edge of the river. Data from a compendium of sound monitoring data from comparable piling exercises in the US indicates that these piles would give rise to high sound energy outputs which would propagate through the adjacent waters of the Lower Liffey while they were being driven. Furthermore, the unattenuated sound levels in question are above levels reported in the literature as giving rise to injury in fish e.g. juvenile Pacific salmon (Popper et al., 2013). The amount of underwater noise likely to be generated by the pile driving will depend in particular on the total number of impacts by required to install each pile. The higher this is, the greater the distance from the pile that potentially damaging sound energy levels would be likely to affect Annex II species migrating through the study area. Although it is predicted that larger fish would be less likely to be impacted compared to smaller ones at the same sound energy levels, this hasn’t yet been demonstrated through laboratory based testing and must therefore be treated with a degree of caution. Due to their lacking a swim bladder lamprey may be less likely to be adversely impacted by sound energy pulses compared to fish of the same size that have swim bladders e.g. salmon. It is likely that fish moving through a high sound energy impacted zone are less likely to be impacted than if they remained stationery within that zone. However, there are situations when the migratory species under consideration may delay within the sound impacted zone and therefore be exposed to the full sound output from a piling event e.g. along the riverside North Wall Quay Extension. Taking all of these considerations into account it is



recommended that piling should not take place at certain times of the year. In addition, other mitigation measures will be presented under ‘Mitigation’ that should be included also, if they are technically feasible.

5.4.7 Mitigation

Dredging

Annual Dredged Area

The proposed six year dredging campaign will divide the shipping channel into six separate areas and dredging will be confined to one of the areas each winter period. This is the preferred approach from a benthic and fisheries perspective. An alternative approach involving the dredging of the whole channel but just taking a shallower portion of sediment each year thereby gradually dropping the level of the whole channel to the eventual desired depth (-10m CD), is not recommended because it maximises the footprint of disturbance on an annual basis.

Dredging Windows

A non-dredging window is recommended to apply to the inner section of the navigation from below the East Link Toll Bridge as far as the end of the north bank port area at the Alexandra Road Extension. The window should run from March to May unless otherwise advised by Inland Fisheries Ireland in order to protect out-migrating smolts. In addition, it is recommended that the inner narrowest portion of the channel upstream and opposite Alexandra Basin West, should be dredged in September in order to reduce the potential risk to river lampreys migrating during October. These non-dredge windows should be agreed in consultation with IFI.

Dredger Overflow

It is recommended that there should be no overflow from the dredger when it is dredging the riverside face and associated berths along the North wall Quay Extension where recent sediment analysis indicated pockets of elevated contaminant levels. This will help to minimise the potential release of contaminants to the water column during dredging. Also, in this area, the dredging should be timed to coincide with tidal movements that would minimise the degree of plume dispersal.

Dredger Operation

It has been shown that the drag-head will tend to entrain more fish and mobile epibenthic crustaceans when it is lifted from the sediment surface while the pumps are still running. This occurs when the dredger comes to the end of a dredged line and turns to dredge back up along an adjacent line. In order to avoid the associated risk of increased entrainment during this turning processes it is recommended that the pumps be switched off while the drag-head is withdrawn from the seabed during the turning process and not engaged again until it is replaced onto the seabed to dredge the next line.



Spoil Disposal

To facilitate more rapid recovery of the benthic communities, it is recommended to minimise the depth of the over burden on the faunal communities. Studies have shown that where the thickness of the deposited layer is kept to 15cm or less, vertical migration of fauna through the sediment will compliment lateral migration and larval recruitment to facilitate recovery (Wilber et al., 2007). The deposition of 177,000m3 of sediment over the whole disposal area will result in the deposition of 6 to 8cm of sediment per calendar month (before finer sediments are winnowed away). It is suggested that the disposal of sediment be spread over the whole disposal site as evenly as is practicable per calendar month in a systematic directional sequence to allow the greatest opportunity for deep burrowing invertebrates to move vertically through the newly deposited layers of spoil. This is less likely to be beneficial during the disposal of the muddier material from the inner areas of the navigation channel as upward migration of sand dwelling species through mud is generally poor but may accelerate the rate of recolonisation during those years when the sandier material from the middle and outer sections of the shipping channel is being deposited at the site.

Piling

It is recommended that no piling should take place along the Liffey channel during the three months of the year when smolts are likely to run in their highest numbers (i.e. March to May inclusive). This recognises the smaller size of smolts compared to returning adults and lamprey. It also takes account of the fact that smolts have a swim bladder which likely makes them more susceptible than lamprey to pressure trauma due to piling noise.

The use of vibratory pile drivers has been shown to be associated with lower peak sound levels and SEL than impact piling and is generally believed to be less likely to cause noise-associated trauma in fish. If vibratory piling can be used on the project, then this should be considered as a methodological mitigation measure, even if piles still require a few strikes with an impact rig to drive them to refusal.

The sequencing of piling operations may also be helpful in reducing possible piling-related trauma. So, for example, if the large circular piles which potentially generate the greatest levels of noise are spread out in terms of when they are driven, or deliberately driven at a slower rate (i.e. fewer strikes per day) then these time intervals will help any potentially traumatised fish resident in the area to recover and or be exposed to a lower cumulative sound energy level per day.


Dredging

The Alexandra Basin redevelopment will result in the loss of a relatively small area of subtidal benthos from the inner parts of Dublin Bay. These areas consist primarily of sandy muds and muds dominated by highly opportunistic fauna.

The dredging operation will result in the removal of macroinvertebrate infauna within the surface sediments of the channel areas being dredged as well as a sizeable portion of the mobile epifauna within the footprint of the dredge foot print and immediate adjacent areas, including juvenile fish. In addition increased rates of sedimentation in areas immediately adjoining the dredged footprint will lead to a localised reduction in macroinvertebrate diversity



and biomass. However, recolonisation in these areas is expected to be rapid, as the areas will not have been subjected to actual sediment removal. The fact that the area to be dredged will be split up more or less evenly over a six year period will ensure that the impact on the wider populations of the benthic and fish species affected will not be significant. The temporary loss of 0.25% of the adjacent cSAC is considered to be minor, as it is expected that recovery to pre-dredge levels would occur rapidly after cessation of dredging. All species identified in the present survey are typical of Irish Coastal waters. No rare or protected species were identified in the present survey.

Provided the non-dredge windows for smolts are adopted when the inner portion of the navigation channel is being dredged, no adverse impacts are anticipated for this life stage. Some returning adult salmon will overlap with the dredging, however their larger size and strong homing instinct is likely to take them through the active dredging areas, regardless of the timing of operations. The possibility of entrainment of returning river lamprey cannot be ruled out but this is not expected to significantly impact the Liffey population, especially if the narrowest part of the channel can be dredged before their peak inward migration in October.

Dumping

It is expected that the main impacts associated with the deposition of approximately 1,000,000 m3 of sediment annually over a six year period will be mainly confined to the footprint of the disposal area. Models indicate a localised impact, with sediments covering circa 1.5m above the existing seabed. The nature of the sediment to remain (primarily sands) will mean recovery of the sediments will commence immediately and occur rapidly. The disposal area is an active disposal site, and as such the benthic communities are adapted to periodic disturbance and contain communities in a continuous state of recovery (Bolam, 2012). Full recovery at the site is not expected to occur until the full six year campaign is completed. The residual impacts associated with this campaign are considered be moderate, but localised and typified by reduced benthic diversity and biomass of benthic macroinvertebrates and to a lesser extent mobile epibenthos including crustaceans and fish. The far-field deposition of up to 0.3 g m-2 of fine sediments within Dublin Bay is expected to have no residual impact.

Noise

Provided the recommendations for non-piling windows indicated are adopted, then no significant impacts are likely to occur to Annex II species. Impacts on resident species, (gobies in particular and possibly juvenile mullet) can be minimised by additional mitigation measures as suggested, principally, the use of vibratory piling where feasible and spacing the driving of larger piles as much as possible.



6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

This chapter examines the potential landscape and visual impact of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) project on the landscape and visual resources of Dublin Port and the wider Dublin Bay area.

This Chapter should be read in conjunction with a series of photomontages produced for the ABR project (under separate cover).

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter seeks to:

a) Establish the baseline conditions

Record and analyse the existing character, quality and sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource. This should include elements of the landscape such as:

o Landform; o Land cover including the vegetation, the slopes, drainage, etc; o Landscape character; o Current landscape designations and planning policies; and o Site visibility, comprising short, medium and long distance views.

b) Analyse baseline conditions

Comment on the scale, character, condition and the importance of the baseline landscape, its sensitivity to change and the enhancement potential where possible.

A visual analysis (illustrated by photographic material) describing characteristics which may be of relevance to the impact of the design and to the method of mitigation.

c) Describe the development

d) Identify the Impacts of the Development on the Landscape and Visual Resource

Identify the landscape and visual impacts of the development at different stages of its life cycle, including:

o Direct & indirect landscape impacts of the development on the landscape of the site and the surrounding area; and

o Visual impacts including: the extent of potential visibility; the view and viewers affected; the degree of visual intrusion; the distance of views; and resultant impacts upon the character and quality of views.



e) Assess the significance of the landscape and visual impacts in terms of the sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource, including the nature and magnitude of the impact.

f) Detail measures proposed to mitigate significant residual detrimental landscape and visual impacts and assess their effectiveness.

g) Assess the ability of the landscape and visual resource to absorb the proposed development.

6.2 METHODOLOGY

6.2.1 Introduction

Methods used in this assessment have been developed by RPS and are derived from the DoEHLG “Landscape and Landscape Assessment” (June 2000) and ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA) by The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). These documents recommend baseline studies to describe, classify and evaluate the existing landscape and visual resource focusing on its sensitivity and ability to accommodate change. The guidelines are not intended as a prescriptive set of rules but rather offer best practice methods and techniques of LVIA. The existing landscape and visual context of the study area was established through a process of desktop study, site survey work and photographic surveys. The proposal was then applied to the baseline conditions to allow the identification of potential impacts, prediction of their magnitude and assessment of their significance. Mitigation can then be identified to reduce as far as possible any residual potential landscape and visual impacts.

6.2.2 Landscape Assessment Criteria and Terminology

The following section describes the criteria and terminology used for during the landscape assessment:

Landscape Quality

For the purpose of this assessment, landscape quality is categorised as:

Exceptional Quality - Areas of especially high quality acknowledged through designation as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or other landscape based sensitive areas. A landscape that is significant within the wider region or at a national level;

High Quality - Areas that have a very strong positive character with valued and consistent distinctive features that gives the landscape unity, richness and harmony. A landscape that is significant within the district;

Medium Quality - Areas that exhibit positive character but which may have evidence of alteration/degradation or erosion of features resulting in a less distinctive landscape. May be of some local landscape significance with some positive recognisable structure; and



Low Quality - Areas that are generally negative in character, degraded and in poor condition. No distinctive positive characteristics and with little or no structure. Scope for positive enhancement.

Landscape Sensitivity

Landscape sensitivity to the type of development proposed is defined as follows:

High Sensitivity: High visual quality landscape with highly valued or unique characteristics susceptible to relatively small changes.

Medium Sensitivity: Medium visual quality landscape with moderately valued characteristics reasonably tolerant of changes.

Low Sensitivity: Low visual quality landscape with common characteristics capable of absorbing substantial change.

Magnitude of Landscape Resource Change

Direct resource changes on the landscape character of the study area are brought about by the introduction of the proposal and its effects on the key landscape characteristics. The following categories and criteria have been used:

High magnitude: Total loss or alteration to key elements of the landscape character which result in fundamental and / or permanent long-term change.

Medium magnitude: Partial or noticeable loss of elements of the landscape character and / or medium-term change.

Low magnitude: Minor alteration to elements of the landscape character and / or short-term/ temporary change.

No Change: No change to landscape character.

Significance of Landscape Impact

The level of significance of effect on landscape is a product of landscape sensitivity and the magnitude of alteration in landscape resource. Where landscape sensitivity has been predicted as high and the magnitude of change as high or medium the resultant impact will be significant in terms of EIA Regulations. This is illustrated in Table 6.1.



Table 6.1 Significance of Landscape Impact

Magnitude of Landscape resource change

Landscape Sensitivity

Low Medium High

No change No change No change No change Low Slight Slight /

moderate Moderate

Medium Slight / moderate

Moderate Moderate / Substantial

High Moderate Moderate /Substantial

Substantial

Landscape Assessment Definitions

Landscape Resource: The combination of elements that contribute to landscape context, character and value.

Landscape Value: The relative value or importance attached to a landscape that expresses national or local consensus because of intrinsic characteristics.

Landscape Character: The distinct and homogenous pattern that occurs in the landscape reflecting geology, landform, soils, vegetation and man’s impact

6.2.3 Visual Assessment Criteria and Terminology

The following section describes the key criteria and terminology used in the visual assessment.

Viewer Sensitivity

Viewer sensitivity is a combination of the sensitivity of the human receptor (i.e. resident; commuter, tourist; walker; recreationist, or worker) and viewpoint type or location (i.e. house, workplace, leisure venue, local beauty spot, scenic viewpoint, commuter route, tourist route or walkers’ route). Sensitivity can be defined as follows:

High sensitivity: e.g. users of an outdoor recreation feature which focuses on the landscape; valued views enjoyed by the community; tourist visitors to scenic viewpoint.

Medium sensitivity: e.g. users of outdoor sport or recreation which does not offer or focus attention on landscape; tourist travellers.

Low sensitivity: e.g. regular commuters, people at place of work (excluding outdoor recreation).

Magnitude of Visual Resource Change

The magnitude of alteration in visual resource or amenity results from the scale of change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in the view



composition, including proportion of the view occupied by the proposed development. Distance and duration of view must be considered. Other vertical features in the landscape and the backdrop to the development will all influence the magnitude of visual resource change. This can be defined as follows:

High magnitude: Where changes to the view significantly alter (negative or beneficial) the overall scene or cause some alteration to the view for a significant length of time.

Medium magnitude: Where some changes occur (negative or beneficial) in the view, but not for a substantial part of the view and/or for a substantial length of time.

Low magnitude: Where only a minor alteration to the view occurs (negative or beneficial) and/or not for a significant length of time.

No change: No discernible deterioration or improvement in the existing view.

Significance of Visual Impact

Significance of visual impact is defined on a project by project basis. The principal criteria for determining significance are magnitude and sensitivity of the receptor. A higher level of significance is generally attached to large scale or substantial effects on sensitive receptors.

Where visual sensitivity has been predicted as high or medium, and the magnitude of change as high, the resultant impact will be significant. Where the magnitude of change has been predicted as high and the visual sensitivity has been predicted as high or medium then the resultant impact will be significant in terms of EIA Regulations.

Table 6.2 illustrates significance of visual impact as a correlation between viewer sensitivity and visual resource change magnitude.

Table 6.2 Significance of Visual Impact

Visual resource change magnitude

Visual Sensitivity

Low Medium High

No change No change No change No change

Low Slight Slight / moderate

Moderate

Medium Slight / moderate

Moderate Moderate / Substantial

High Moderate Moderate/

Substantial

Substantial

Positive effects upon receptors may also result from a change to the view. These may be through the removal of negative features or visual detractors, or through the addition of well designed elements, which add to the visual experience in a complementary, positive and stimulating manner.



Visual Assessment Definitions

Visual Quality: Although the interpretation of viewers’ experience can have preferential and subjective components, there is generally clear public agreement that the visual resources of certain landscapes have high visual quality. The visual quality of a landscape will reflect the physical state of the repair of individual features or elements.

Visual Resources: The visual resources of the landscape are the stimuli upon which actual visual experience is based. They are a combination of visual character and visual quality.

Visual Character: When a viewer experiences the visual environment, it is not observed as one aspect at a time, but rather as an integrated whole. The viewer’s visual understanding of an area is based on the visual character of elements and aspects and the relationships between them.

Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI)

The ZVI is the area within which views of the site and/or the development can be obtained. The extent of the ZVI is determined primarily by the topography of the area. The ZVI is then refined by field studies to indicate where relevant forestry, woodlands, hedges or other local features obscure visibility from the main roads, local viewpoints/landmarks and/or significant settlements.

Using terrain-modelling techniques combined with the proposed development specification, a map is created to show areas from where the proposed development would theoretically be seen. A worst case scenario is taken in line with Landscape Institute guidelines.

The actual visual impacts within the ZVI have been described in later sections of this chapter. The ZVI for the proposal is illustrated in Figure 6.1.

Photographs & Photomontages

Photographs and photomontages have been prepared for selected representative viewpoints throughout the study area as indicated in Figure 6.2.

Viewpoints are chosen to give a typical representative sample of views of the proposal within the landscape using the parameters of distance and direction of view. Viewpoints frequented by members of the public such as public rights of way, car parks and popular viewpoints are usually chosen, along with views from nearby settlements.

Photographs from each viewpoint location are taken covering an arc of view matching that of the visual extent of the development.



6.3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

6.3.1 Scale and Character

The proposed site is located within the existing Dublin Port Estate and is surrounded by tall buildings and structures in a busy and active harbour context that is in a constant state of flux on a 24 hour basis. To the southeast of the site are located the most notable features nearby that are the twin stacks of the Poolbeg Power Station which are both 210m tall. The twin stacks are recognised landmarks in the Dublin City landscape and at the entrance to Dublin Port. The coastal location of the proposed site results in extensive potential views north and south due to the flat nature of the coastline in this part of Dublin Bay. It is only at Howth and Dalkey/Killiney that rocky coastline returns and extends to cliffs and hills.

The ABR Project area involves a range of uses that dictate the visual appearance and types of vessels that berth in and around the site.

Berths 29 to 31 are predominantly bulk carriers with fixed bulk handling facilities at the quay side. Quayside features include hopper systems and cranes for offloading bulk materials such as grain. An elevated conveyor system is a notable feature of this area. Several buildings are set back to the north of the quay that are used for bulk handling and storage. Vessels berthing here are generally of varying sizes from small coasters up to “Panamax” size ships.

Berths 32 to 34 are used for a variety of activities including container handling, bulk importation, project cargoes (such as wind turbines), vehicle imports and, during summer months, cruise ships.

General cargo and bulk (including cement exports) are also handled on Berth 35 at the end of Ocean Pier.

Mobile cranes are a feature of these berths with several buildings located to the rear.

There is a dedicated bulk jetty with a sealed conveyor system that connects into a transfer building which takes ore off a train from Tara Mines. The hopper delivers material to the north side of the jetty to small and medium sized bulk ships.

At the North Wall Quay Extension Ro-Ro vessels use Ro-Ro ramps for a facility operated by P&O.

At the northwest part of the site there is a graving dock which is still used for ship repair and maintenance.

Berths 52 to 53 are currently used by Seatruck for their Ro-Ro services to the UK.

Large cruise ships are a regular feature of the study area that. They are a positive feature and an attraction to passers-by.

On the south side of the Port there is a small leisure boating area (Poolbeg Marina) that contrasts in scale to the larger vessels to the north.



Further Port facilities are also located on the southern side of the river and adjacent to Poolbeg Power Station including container storage areas and Lo-Lo facilities.

The Great South Wall beyond the power station is used by the local community for walking and recreation purposes.

North Bull Island is similarly used by the local community and wider community for walking, recreational (including golf) and nature conservation activities.

Beyond the port, residential landscape extends to the sea at Sandymount and Merrion to the south and Clontarf and Raheny to the north. The industrial harbour and residential areas are broken up by significant areas of public open space, which provide formal and informal recreation for the local community and visitors alike such as Fairview Park and St Anne’s Park to the north and Sandymount Promenade to the south. The coastline is followed by an extensive footpath and cycle path systems that are popular with the local community for informal recreation and links a further open spaces along the eastern parts of Dublin City. The footpaths extend as far as Poolbeg Lighthouse on the Poolbeg Peninsula and permit extensive seascape views along the coast. Dublin City has a generally flat topography and medium and long distance views within the built fabric of the city are extremely limited.

The landscape character of the study area can be described by use of the following distinctive landscape character areas:

Urban residential landscape: Residential development consisting of two and single storey buildings are the predominant landscape features in the surrounding study area. Dollymount, Clontarf and Fairview lie to the north of the proposed site. To the south lie Ringsend and Irishtown. Further to the south are located Sandymount, Merrion and Booterstown. Occasionally larger buildings in the form of schools, office blocks and churches break the residential landscape. The visual quality of the landscape is low. This landscape character area has a low sensitivity to change.

Harbour Based Industrial landscape: Dublin Port is a significant landmark on the eastern side of Dublin City. Industrial and commercial activity within the Port area is extensive. Passenger ferries depart from Dublin to Holyhead and Liverpool on a daily basis (and to the Isle of Man seasonally). The Port area also acts as a major transport route between north and south Dublin via the East Link Bridge. Poolbeg Power Station’s twin stacks dominate the industrial landscape. Vertical elements are frequent and include stacks, cranes and associated lifting facilities. The visual quality of this landscape is low. This landscape character area has a low sensitivity to change.

Urban parkland landscape: A number of large public open spaces are located in the study area. Coastal promenades and walkways are located to the north at Clontarf and south at Sandymount. These coastal walkways are popular with visitors and the local community and provide panoramic views of Dublin Bay. Bull Island is located to the north east of the proposed site and consists of a flat duneland habitat. The island contains two golf courses (St. Anne's and Royal Dublin). The strand on the island is popular in summer months. Large formal gardens are also frequent such as Fairview Park and St. Anne’s Park. Both parks contain mature parkland landscapes and recreational facilities. Irishtown Nature Park is located immediately south of the proposed site. This Nature Park is zoned as a Natural Habitat Area in the Docklands Area Master Plan. Recreational facilities are also provided at Ringsend Park and Sean Moore Park. The visual quality of the urban parkland landscapes is high and they



provide a valued resource to the local community. This landscape has a high sensitivity to change.

The locations of landscape character areas are provided in Figure 6.3.

6.3.2 Visual Context

The ZVI as illustrated in Figure 6.1 indicates that potentially extensive views of the proposed site are available. Views from the northeast extend to Howth and Sutton Strand. The existing twin stacks at Poolbeg and taller port infrastructure are visible in long distance glimpse views from as far as the M50 between the M1 junction and the N3 junction. Intermittent views only are available from the M50 and it is difficult to discern detail from such distances (approximately 10 km). West of the proposed site the built components of Dublin City severely restrict views beyond the quays. Individual tall buildings within the City Centre will potentially have views of the proposed site. Broadly, the views are limited to Custom House Quay in the direction of the City Centre. The coastal road from Sutton to Ringsend and from Sandymount to Dun Laoghaire will have intermittent views of the proposed site (R105; R131; R118; N31). Long distance views from the south extend as far as Killiney and the Dublin Mountains. Views within the ZVI are described in detail in Viewpoints 1 – 13 in section 6.5.5 below supported by photomontages in Appendix 6.

6.3.3 Landscape Planning Designations

This site is located within Dublin Port - where the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 provides the extent development plan framework.


Section 6.4.2 of the Plan refers to potential landscape designations. It recognises that "Dublin’s setting on the River Liffey, with the Dublin Mountains to the south, Howth to the north, and also the amenities and wildlife of Dublin Bay – is a unique one." The retention of key landscapes and open spaces are noted as critical, given their contribution in terms of amenity and creating a sense of identity. North Bull Island and extensive parkland areas within the city are stated as being "of national landscape importance."

Section 4.3 of the Plan is entitled "The Strategic Approach" - referring to various key approaches which underpin the whole Plan and contribute to the overall vision for Dublin. These key approaches include, creating a more compact city and developing a green infrastructure strategy. In respect of the inner city, "the strength of local character existing in different areas" is noted as a positive feature. The site is located within "Dublin Docklands North" character area - as per Figure 3 of the Plan. One of the policies listed within Chapter 4 - Shaping the City is:

SC06 - To prepare a set of Guiding Principles for views and prospects in the city with the aim of undertaking a views and prospects study with a view to preparing a list for protection which will be integrated with and complement the building height policy in the city.

A "Key View and Prospect" is annotated within Figure 4 of the Plan that shows a range of city centre views designated towards the west of Dublin Port. The views are beyond the site to the west and also focused towards the City and away from the Port area.



Chapter 6 of the Plan is entitled "Greening the City." Figure 10 illustrates proposed and existing Green Corridors throughout the City within which policies include those aimed at improving biodiversity, amenity and the creation of linear parks. The proposal does not overlap any of these areas.

In respect of landscape specifically - the following Plan Policies are listed within Chapter 6:

• GC10 - To continue to protect and enhance the landscape, including existing green spaces through sustainable planning and design for both the existing community and for future generations in accordance with the principles of the European Landscape Convention.

• GC11 - To investigate key landscape areas with a view to determining their suitability for designation as Landscape Conservation Areas.

• GC12 To protect and enhance views and prospects which contribute to the appreciation of landscape and natural heritage.

Among the "Plan Objectives" within Chapter 6 listed in respect of landscape are:

• GCO7 - To investigate the following areas with a view to determining their suitability for designation as Landscape Conservation Areas: (i) Phoenix Park, (ii) North Bull Island, (iii) The Botanic Gardens, and (iv) St. Anne’s Park and to examine the potential for other Landscape Conservation Areas as appropriate during the lifetime of the development plan.

• GCO8 - To undertake a ‘Views and Prospects’ study. Additional views and prospects may be identified through the development management process and during the drafting of local area plans.

• GCO9 - To seek the designation of The Liffey Valley (from Islandbridge to the city boundary) Sandymount and Merrion Strands, the Phoenix Park and also Irishtown Nature Park as Special Amenity Areas and to prepare Special Amenity Area Orders (SAAOs) for same.

• GCO10 - To protect trees in accordance with existing Tree Preservation Orders.

• GCO11 - To undertake surveys and analysis, with a view to advancing additional Tree Preservation Orders where appropriate.

6.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed development is described in detail elsewhere in this EIS (see Project Description – Chapter 4) and as such only a brief description is included within this chapter. There are three main components of the proposed development works namely; Alexandra Basin West; Berth 52/53; and the Navigation Channel.

Alexandra Basin West works include; dismantling and removal of infrastructure; Quay wall refurbishment/construction; Ramp installation Ro-Ro jetty construction; Dredging of basin and



berthing pockets to -10m Chart Datum (CD); Treatment of contaminated dredged material and re-use for land reclamation; Excavation and restoration of Graving Dock #1; Infilling of Graving Dock #2 with treated dredged material; and relocation of ore concentrates loading system to Alexandra Quay West Extension. Berth 52/53 works include; Dismantling and removal of existing infrastructure; Infilling of Berth 52/53 with treated dredged material for land reclamation; Raising of existing surface levels by 1.4m; Quay wall construction; Mooring jetty construction; and ramp installation.

Navigational Channel works include; Dredging of Liffey Channel to -10m CD, from East Link Bridge to Dublin Bay Buoy; and construction of a marina wall at Poolbeg Marina.

For the purpose of the landscape and visual impact assessment the project has been assessed in its entirety rather than individual components as a worst case scenario. Where necessary the impact of individual components has been described.

6.5 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS

Potential impacts for both the construction and operation stage are described below in Section 6.5.1 (Construction) and Section 6.5.2 (Operation).

6.5.1 Construction Stage Impacts

Potential construction stage impacts are as follows:- (i) Obstruction of views; (ii) Change in landscape character; (iii) Machinery for site preparation/enabling works, dredging and demolition operations; and (iv) Site access and vehicular and plant movements.

6.5.1.1 Construction Stage Landscape Character Impacts

An assessment of the significance of the impact of the proposed works during construction on the landscape character area is summarised below. The proposed works are located directly within the Harbour Based Industrial Landscape Character Area. Harbour Based Industrial Landscape

This landscape character area is concentrated mainly on low-lying parts of the landscape at the mouth of the River Liffey and Dublin Bay. This is a generally robust, frequently changing landscape. The current port activities are a prominent part of this landscape. The existing site has the appearance of constant movement from ships, cranes, containers, HGV’s etc.

The construction phase of the proposal will be limited in nature and duration. Construction phase activities will have a limited landscape resource change due to the condition of the existing site as an industrial landscape. Temporary stockpiles for treatment of and subsequent movement of dredged material from Alexander Basin West for remediation will not significantly alter the current landscape character of the site.



The Harbour Based Industrial Landscape Character Area has a low sensitivity to change.

When potential landscape impacts are assessed during the construction stage there will be slight negative impacts due to the low landscape resource change that will result. 6.5.1.2 Construction Stage Visual Impacts

An assessment was completed within the ZVI to determine the magnitude of visual impact of the proposed development on potential views from sensitive visual receptors including residential properties during the construction stage. There will be limited potential for visibility of the proposed development from residential properties during the construction stage. The nearest properties are located at York Road and Pigeon House Road to the south. The properties on both roads have front elevations to the north with an aspect that includes the existing Dublin Port and the busy East Link Toll Plaza. The properties are predominantly single storey cottage type dwellings but there are modern apartment blocks near the junction with Sean Moore Road. In views from all such properties the existing harbour and its activities are prominent. The introduction of the proposed construction stage will have limited visibility from these dwellings and be read as part of the on-going existing port activities. Construction traffic will travel through the area but will be a component of the existing heavy traffic in this area and no significant visual impacts are predicted as such traffic is a key feature of this road already. Overall no significant visual impacts are predicted for residential properties at during the construction stage. 6.5.2 Operational Stage Impacts

6.5.2.1 Operation Stage Landscape Character Impacts

The landscape impacts of the proposed development is summarised in this section. The proposal is located directly within one Landscape Character Area namely Harbour Based Industrial Landscape.

Harbour Based Industrial landscape: The proposed development is located directly within the Harbour Based Industrial Landscape. This landscape is in a constant state of change as cranes, ships and cargo are moving around the Dublin Port area on a continuous basis. The proposed development is completely consistent with the key features of the existing landscape character in this area. The limited demolition of buildings will not be noticeable in the wider scale of this landscape. The movement of the existing small lighthouse and works to the quay wall structure will alter the current landscape character to a low level as these features will be maintained in the harbour and it is currently difficult to discern the small lighthouse at distance from the frequent background distractions and harbour facilities. The movement of the existing lighthouse will potentially result in it being more visible from the surrounding landscape as it will be located closer to the East Link Bridge and will be further away from the small marina located on the south shore. The marina wall at Poolbeg Marina will be a new feature in the landscape.

The removal of unsightly overhead conveyors and old infrastructure and provision of new quays and infrastructure will reinforce the key characteristics of this landscape.



The visual quality of this landscape is low. This landscape character area has a low sensitivity to change. The magnitude of change in landscape resource is low. The predicted significance of landscape impact is slight negative.

6.5.3 Planning Policy Designation Impacts

This site is located within Dublin Port - where the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 provides the extent development plan framework. A review and assessment has taken place of the Plan to establish the relevant landscape related designations and these are described in section 6.3.3 above.

There are no protected views or prospects in proximity to proposal. The nearest protected views and prospects (shown on Figure 4 of the Plan) are located along the Quays but within the city centre from where it will not be possible to view the proposed development.

A range of other policies have been identified in the Plan but there is no landscape or visual impacts from the proposals on these remaining policies.

Overall when landscape related planning designations are assessed there will be no significant impacts.

6.5.4 Visual Impacts on Residential Properties

An assessment has been undertaken within the ZVI to determine the magnitude of visual impact of the ABR project on potential views from sensitive visual receptors including residential properties.

There is limited potential visibility of the ABR project from residential properties. The nearest properties are located at York Road and Pigeon House Road to the south. The properties on both roads have front elevations to the north with an aspect that includes the existing Dublin Port and the busy East Link Toll Plaza. The properties are predominantly single storey cottage type dwellings but there are modern apartment blocks near the junction with Sean Moore Road. In views from all such properties the existing harbour and its activities are prominent. When ships are berthed it is notable that quayside activities are obscured. This aspect will be maintained by the proposed development. The proposed dredging activities and marina wall at Poolbeg Marina will not significantly visually impact on the residential properties as such activities are a feature of the current site. The movement of the existing lighthouse will result in it being more visible to residential properties as it will be further away from the small marina located on the south shore. Overall the proposed development at Alexandra Basin west will be difficult to discern from the existing activities and features at Dublin Port. The proposed developments at Berth 52-53 will be well screened from residential properties. The predicted change in visual resource will be low. The visual sensitivity of receptors is medium. The predicted significance of visual impact for residential properties at York Road and Pigeon House Road will be slight/moderate negative.

6.5.5 Viewpoint Assessment

A series of representative viewpoints have been selected from locations within the ZVI (Figure 6.1) and subjected to specific assessment below. The location of all viewpoints can be found on Figure 6.2 while the photomontages for Viewpoints 1-13 are provided in Appendix 6 and should be read with the text below.



Viewpoint 1 – St Fintans Burial Ground Howth (Photograph only)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from a local road that is predominantly used by the local community and walkers. The viewer sensitivity is medium.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from a burial ground that is slightly elevated above the nearby coastline. Although trees partly screen views out to the coast in summer months there will be a more open view in winter months. The existing port facilities are a distant feature in views and read as part of the wider landscape.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be located within this view direction but not discernible due to the distance of the view and the presence of the existing port facilities within the existing visual resource.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is no change.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be no change.

Viewpoint 2 – Sutton Strand (Photograph only)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from a local road that is predominantly and open space that is predominantly used by the local community and occasional tourists. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from the roadside looking across and area of open space at the coast. There is a lack of any screening and the view is open and panoramic. The existing port facility is a very distant feature and it is hard to make out much detail of its component parts. The Dublin Mountains form the backdrop to the view.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be directly located within this view direction but well screened by existing port buildings and structures. At this long distance it will not be possible to discern any aspect of the proposals during operation stage from the existing port operations.



Viewpoint 3 – Bill Island Visitors Centre (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from a local road that is predominantly used by the local community and tourists. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from within the Bull Island site and across dune vegetation towards the existing port area. The Poolbeg stacks are clearly visible and it is possible to discern taller aspects of the existing port operations. Lower level views to the port are well screened by topography in the foreground. The Dublin Mountains form the background to the view.



Predicted view: the proposed development will be located directly within this view from this location but all new features will be well screened and very difficult to discern from the existing port operations with no overall change in visual resource.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is no change


Viewpoint 4 – St Anne’s Park Clontarf (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from a local park that is predominantly used by the local community and occasional tourist. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from a slightly elevated location within the park that offers views across trees and buildings towards the coast. The majority of the existing port area is well screened but visibility will increase in winter months slightly. Existing ships coming and going from the port will be visible to the left of the view.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be located in this view direction but completely screened by intervening trees and buildings in the foreground or read as part of the existing port facilities. There will be no change in visual resource as a result.



Viewpoint 5 – Bull Wall (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from Bull Wall that is predominantly used by the local community for walking. The viewer sensitivity is high

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from Bull Wall that extends into Dublin Bay and due to the lack of any screening allows extensive and panoramic views across Dublin Bay towards the existing port area. It is possible to easily discern individual cranes and structures at the port but they read as one massive harbour related industrial site. Partial views to the Dublin Mountains are available in the background.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be directly located within the view but will be extremely difficult to discern from the existing port features. All the proposed operational stage features will be read as part of the existing port with no noticeable change in visual resource.





Viewpoint 6 – Clontarf Car Park (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from a car park at Clontarf that is predominantly used by the local community and commuters. The viewer sensitivity is medium

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from Clontarf that extends across the inner Dublin Bay towards the existing port area. Taller stacks such as those at Poolbeg are notable landmark. Existing vegetation and buildings in the foreground prevent views to a large part of the port area. It is possible to discern a small number of individual cranes and structures at the port. Views to the Dublin Mountains are partly available in the background.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be directly located within the view direction but will not be discernible from the existing port features. The existing buildings in the foreground prevent views with no noticeable change in visual resource.



Viewpoint 7 – Fairview Park (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from Fairview Park that is predominantly used by the local community. The viewer sensitivity is high

Existing visual resource: the existing view from Fairview Park is available across open parkland towards the coast and Dublin Bay. A lack of shoreline vegetation permits medium to long distance views towards the sea. Existing tall stacks at the port area are local landmarks. Buildings in the foreground restrict views to most of the port area with only taller components such as cranes and mast lighting visible.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be directly located within the view but will not be discernible from the existing port features. All the proposed operational stage features will either well screened or will be read as part of the existing port with no noticeable change in visual resource.



Viewpoint 8 – North Wall Quay (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from North Wall Quay that is predominantly used by the local community, local workers and occasional tourist. The viewer sensitivity is medium.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available the North Wall Quay and is completely urban in character. The view is enclosed by port and road infrastructure that prevents any medium or longer distance views out. It is possible to observe existing ships at berth as well as taller cranes and gantries in the port. Busy traffic using the East Link is a predominant feature in the foreground.



Predicted view: the proposed development will be directly located within this view. All proposed developments will be read in the context of the existing facilities and difficult to discern. The majority of proposed development is well screened in the view.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is no change


Viewpoint 9 – East Link Toll (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from the East Link Toll area that is predominantly used by commuters. The viewer sensitivity is low.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from the roadside and directly towards the existing port. Ships coming and going from the port will be a continual and moving feature of this view. The view is predominantly enclosed by the port with several tall buildings, stacks, cranes, high mast lighting and gantries breaking the skyline. Small leisure craft are moored in the foreground and at Poolbeg Marina. The existing small lighthouse is located within the view but is difficult to read from the background clutter.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be directly located within this view. The proposals will be readily discernible in this view due to its proximity. The quay wall will be the most noticeable aspect of the proposals but the new wall is read at the same location as the existing quay wall. The newness of the new quay wall will not last long and concrete will soon age and green. The small lighthouse will move closer to the viewer but it remains difficult to discern from the background clutter in the view. The surge wall at Poolbeg Marina will be a new feature in the view. Ships coming and going will remain a feature of this view.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is low.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be slight negative.

Viewpoint 10 – Sandymount Strand Car Park (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from a local park that is predominantly used by the local community and occasional tourist. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from a path within the park that offers views across the shoreline towards the coast and beyond. The existing stacks at Poolbeg are a notable landmark in the view. The majority of the lower level existing port facilities are well screened but visibility of the taller elements such as cranes, high mast lights and gantries is possible to the rear of existing buildings.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be located in this view direction but completely screened by intervening buildings in the foreground and at the existing port. There will be no change in visual resource as a result.





Viewpoint 11 – Clontarf Road Promenade (Photograph and photomontage)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from a coast road and footpath that is predominantly used by the local community and occasional tourist. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from a low lying coastal footpath beside Clontarf Road that offers panoramic views across the shoreline towards the coast and beyond. The existing stacks at Poolbeg are a notable landmark in the view. The majority of the existing port facilities located within the view particularly the taller elements such as cranes, high mast lights and gantries that occasional break the skyline. The lower portions of the taller structures and remaining port facilities are read against the background of the Dublin Mountains.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be located in this view direction but either completely screened by intervening buildings in the foreground and at the existing port or extremely difficult to discern from existing port infrastructure. There will be no change in visual resource as a result.



Viewpoint 12 – Idrone Terrace Blackrock (Photograph only)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from a coast road and footpath at Blackrock that is predominantly used by the local community and occasional tourist. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource: the existing view is available from an elevated footpath that offers panoramic views across the shoreline towards the coast and beyond. The existing stacks at Poolbeg are a notable landmark in the view. The majority of the lower level existing port facilities are well screened but visibility of the taller elements such as cranes, high mast lights and gantries is just possible to the rear of existing buildings albeit at a long distance.

Predicted view: the proposed development will be located in this view direction but completely screened by intervening buildings in the foreground and at the existing port. There will be no change in visual resource as a result.



Viewpoint 13 – Killiney Hill (Photograph only)

Viewer sensitivity: this view is available from Killiney Hill and is predominantly available to the local community, tourists and recreational users. The viewer sensitivity is high.



Existing visual resource: this view is very elevated and panoramic permitting views as far as Howth across Dublin Bay. The distant view is of a built up seaside town of Dun Laoghaire. The urban setting of Dun Laoghaire can be seen sprawling from the right of the view towards the left. It has the usual character of a seaside town with church spires notable. The tall stacks at Poolbeg are noticeable and it is just possible to discern some tall structures at the port area.

Predicted view: the proposed development at the port will not be visible due to the distance of the view.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual will be no change.


6.6 MITIGATION MEASURES

Landscape mitigation measures are those taken to help remedy, reduce or compensate for significant landscape and visual impacts created by the development. As set out in the sections above there have been no significant landscape or visual impacts predicted for the ABR Project. There is therefore no requirement for specific landscape mitigation measures to address significant impacts. 6.7 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

This section of the chapter assesses the impact of the proposed redevelopment on the landscape character and visual receptors (previously identified in Section 6.5 above) following completion of the project and after the mitigation has been implemented.

No significant landscape or visual impacts have been predicted for either the construction or operation stage of the ABR Project. Following completion of the development there are therefore no significant residual landscape or visual impacts predicted as a result.

Within the wider landscape the completed development will continue to blend with existing ship and port activities with no significant residual landscape character impacts and the completed development will become a remain as a recognised feature of the local visual context.

6.8 INTERACTIONS

This landscape and visual assessment has a direct interaction with the Cultural Heritage, Ecology and Noise Chapters of the EIS. The potential impact on built heritage aspects of the existing port including the North Quay Wall Extension and the Lighthouse are described fully in Chapter 12 Cultural Heritage and not elaborated in this landscape and visual assessment. The potential impact on habitats is described fully in Chapter 5 Flora and Fauna and not elaborated in this landscape and visual assessment. The introduction of any noise mitigation measures is described fully in Chapter 7 Air and Climate and is not discussed further in this landscape and visual assessment. In completing the landscape and visual assessment liaison has taken place between the landscape architect and the cultural heritage consultant, ecologist and noise consultant with regards to potential mitigation measures.



6.9 CONCLUSIONS

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of the ABR Project at Dublin Port during both the construction and operational stages has been completed.

The ABR Project is located within a landscape character area identified as Harbour Based Industrial Landscape. This landscape character area has been identified as having a low sensitivity to change. The magnitude of landscape resource change will be low and the significance of landscape impact will be slight negative.

The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) has been established for the ABR Project to allow any potential areas of significant visual impact to be identified. Actual visual impacts from within the ZVI have been predicted by site survey and assessment during the operational phase on potential views from sensitive visual receptors including residential properties.

There are large areas of Dublin and the adjacent settled coastline that will not have views of the proposal due to intervening vegetation and buildings and it is only in close proximity to the site that there will be potential direct views (East Toll Plaza area). The existing port facilities including ships and cranes and traffic are all features of the existing views and there will few new features visible from the wider ZVI.

The main area with potential views of the proposals during construction and operation stages are located immediately south at York Road and Pigeon House Road from where the predicted significance of visual impact will be slight/moderate negative.

A total of 13 viewpoints have been assessed and no viewpoints have been predicted to have significant visual impacts.

Overall the ABR Project will be difficult to discern from the existing activities and features at Dublin Port.

As no significant landscape or visual impacts have been predicted there is no requirement for specific landscape mitigation measures.

In conclusion the broader landscape character area and visual context around Dublin Port area has the capacity to absorb a development of this scale.









7. AIR & CLIMATE

This Chapter of the EIS assesses the impact of the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project (ABR Project) on the air environment in terms of Noise & Vibration and Air Quality & Climate.

The impact of the proposed development on Seveso sites is also addressed in this Chapter and in Appendix 7.

7.1 NOISE AND VIBRATION

This section includes an assessment of the likely noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed ABR Project.

During the construction phase, there is potential for noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties from the use of noisy plant and equipment and vibration impacts from the use of certain construction phase activities (e.g. piling).

The assessment of the operational phase noise includes an assessment of the noise impact from new plant/equipment at the port as a result of the proposed development, the assessment of road traffic changes in the vicinity of the port as a result of the proposed development and the assessment of changes to the port usage as a result of the proposed development (e.g. change in number of vessels using the port, change in the times when vessels are using the port etc.).

The proposed development will result in the redevelopment of two areas of the port (Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52/53) and capital dredging to increase the depth of the approach channel to the port.

The activities at Alexandra Basin West will include the demolition of some buildings, the removal of a section of the North Wall Quay Extension, the removal of jetties, the strengthening of quay walls, new decking and hardstanding areas, the provision of Ro-Ro facilities, the replacement of conveyor systems, the infilling of Graving Dock #2 and the provision of a marina wall adjacent to Poolbeg marina.

The activities at Berths 52/53 will predominantly involve the treatment of contaminated sediments originating from Alexandra Basin West, the infilling of the existing berths at this location and the creation of a new river berth.

Dublin Port is located in the heart of Dublin City and hence is in relatively close proximity to a large number of sensitive receptors. The nearest residential properties to the proposed Alexandra Basin West works are the properties along Pigeon House Road located to the south of the basin across the River Liffey. The nearest properties to the proposed activities at Berths 52/53 are the properties to the north of the site along Clontarf Road.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with Figure 7.1.1.


IBE0807/EIS01 7-2 Final]

Figure 7.1.1 Noise Monitoring and Noise Prediction Locations



7.1.1 Methodology

Relevant Noise Guidance Document

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) - Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Applications, Surveys and Assessments in Relation to Scheduled Activities (NG4)

NG4 is the most recent Irish guidance document in relation to noise survey and assessment and as such is the most relevant Irish guidance document for the purposes of this assessment. The document relates primarily to noise surveys and assessments for EPA licensed facilities but in the absence of any other directly applicable guidance documents, it provides useful reference material for the purposes of completing the noise assessment for the proposed ABR project.

The EPA published two earlier documents in relation to the survey, assessment and management of noise emissions from licensed facilities, namely the Environmental Noise Survey Guidance Document (commonly referred to as NG1) and Guidance Note for Noise in Relation to Scheduled Activities - 2nd Edition (commonly referred to as NG2). These two documents have been withdrawn with the publication of NG4.

NG4 provides detailed consideration of a range of noise related issues including basic background to noise issues, various noise assessment criteria and procedures, noise reduction measures, Best Available Techniques (BAT) and the detailed requirements for noise surveys.

Other EPA guidelines such as Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements [2002] and Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) [2003] have been referred to also in the preparation of this Noise and Vibration section.

NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (2004)

This guidance document is primarily concerned with setting out the design criteria with regard to noise from new road schemes in Ireland. However it also provides useful reference material in terms of supplying suitable noise and vibration threshold limits for construction phase activities in Ireland.

The NRA Guidelines indicate noise levels typically deemed to be acceptable for the construction phase of road schemes (See Table 7.1.1). These values are indicative only and more stringent limits may be applied where pre-existing noise levels are low.



Table 7.1.1 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels at the façade of dwellings during construction

Days & Times

LAeq (1 hr) dB LpA(max)slow dB

Monday to Friday

07:00 – 19:00hrs

70 80

Monday to Friday

19:00 – 22:00hrs

60* 65*

Saturday

08:00 – 16:30hrs

65 75

Sunday Bank Holidays

08:00 – 16:30hrs

60* 65*

* Construction activity at these times. Other than that required in respect of emergency works, will normally require explicit permission of the relevant local authority.

British Standard BS5228:2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and open Sites

This British standard consists of two parts and covers the need for protection against noise and vibration of persons living and working in the vicinity of construction and open sites. The standard recommends procedures for noise and vibration control in respect of construction operations and aims to assist architects, contractors and site operatives, designers, developers, engineers, local authority environmental health officers and planners.

Part 1 of the standard provides a method of calculating noise from construction plant, including:

Tables of source noise levels;

Methods for summing up contributions from intermittently operating plant;

A procedure for calculating noise propagation;

A method for calculating noise screening effects; and

A way of predicting noise from mobile plant, such as haul roads.

The standard also provides guidance on legislative background, community relations, training, nuisance, project supervision and control of noise and vibration.

The ABC method outlined in Section E3.2 has been used for the purposes of determining whether the predicted noise levels from the construction activities will result in any significant noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

Table 7.1.2 outlines the applicable noise threshold limits that apply at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. The determination of what category to apply is dependent on the existing



baseline ambient (LAeq) noise level (rounded to the nearest 5dB) at the nearest noise sensitive property. For weekday daytime, if the ambient noise level is less than the Category A threshold limit, the Category A threshold limit (i.e. 65dB) applies. If the ambient noise level is the same as the Category A threshold limit, the Category B threshold limit (i.e. 70dB) applies. If the ambient noise level is more than the Category A threshold limit, the Category C threshold limit (i.e. 75dB) applies. The applicable limits that apply at each of the sensitive receptors included in the construction phase noise model are presented and discussed in Section 7.1.3.

Table 7.1.2 Noise Threshold Limits at Nearest Sensitive Receptors for Drilling Rig Activities

Threshold Limits [dB(A)]

Category A Category B Category C

Night-time (23:00 - 07:00)

45

50

55

Evening and Weekends (19:00 - 23:00 Weekdays, 13:00-23:00 Saturdays, 07:00-23:00 Sundays)

55

60

65

Weekday daytime (07:00-19:00) and Saturdays (07:00-13:00)

65

70

75

British Standard 8233:1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice

BS8233:1999 provides guidance values for a range of ambient noise levels within residential and commercial/industrial properties as shown in Table 7.1.3.



Table 7.1.3 Internal Ambient Noise Levels for Living Spaces

Criterion Typical Situation Design Range dB LAeq,t

Good Reasonable

Residential

Reasonable resting / sleeping conditions

Living rooms 30 40

Bedrooms 30 35

Industrial / Commercial / Office

Reasonable industrial working conditions

Light engineering 65 75

Garages, warehouses 65 75

Reasonable speech or telephone communications

Corridor 45 55

Cafeteria, canteen, kitchen 50 55

Wash-room, toilet 45 55

Reasonable conditions for study and work requiring concentration

Meeting room, executive office

35 40

Staff room 35 45

The threshold limits described in Table 7.1.3 serve as a reference point for assessing the likely noise impacts from the proposed development on the various land uses in the vicinity of the ABR project.

British Standard BS4142:1997 - Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas

BS4142: 1997 describes a method of determining the level of a noise of an industrial nature, together with procedures for assessing whether the noise in question is likely to give rise to complaints from persons living in the vicinity. In general, the likelihood of complaint in response to a noise depends on factors including the margin by which it exceeds the background noise level, its absolute level, time of day, change in noise environment etc., as well as local attitudes to the premises and the nature of the neighbourhood.

The standard has been used in this assessment in relation to whether noise from plant/equipment associated with the proposed development is likely to give rise to complaints in the residential units nearest the proposed development.

World Health Organisation (WHO) - Guidelines for Community Noise

In 1999, the World Health Organisation (WHO) proposed guidelines for community noise. In this guidance, a LAeq threshold daytime noise limit of 55 dB is suggested for outdoor living areas in order to protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed. A second daytime limit of 50 dB is also given as a threshold limit for moderate annoyance.

The guidelines suggest that an internal LAeq not greater than 30 dB for continuous noise is needed to prevent negative effects on sleep. This is equivalent to a façade level of 45 dB LAeq,



assuming open windows or a free-field level of about 42 dB LAeq. If the noise is not continuous, then the internal level required to prevent negative effects on sleep is a LAmax,fast of 45 dB. Therefore, for sleep disturbance, the continuous level as well as the number of noisy events should be considered.

The Night Noise Guidelines for Europe was published in 2009 on the back of extensive research completed by a WHO working group. Considering the scientific evidence on the threshold of night noise exposure indicated by Lnight,outside as defined in the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC), an Lnight,outside of 40dB should be the target of the night noise guideline (NNG) to protect public, including the most vulnerable groups such as children, the chronically ill and the elderly. An interim target of 55dB is recommended where the NNG cannot be achieved. These guidelines are applicable to Member States of the European Region and may be considered as an extension to the previous WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (1999).

In 2012, the WHO published the Methodological Guidance for Estimating the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise. This document outlines the principles of quantitative assessment of the burden of disease from environmental noise, describes the status in terms of the implementation of the European Noise Directive and reviews evidence on exposure-response relationships between noise and cardiovascular diseases.

UK Department of Transport (Welsh Office) - Calculation of Road Traffic Noise [CRTN]

This Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) guidance document outlines the procedures to be applied for calculating noise from road traffic. These procedures are necessary to enable entitlement under the Noise Insulation Regulations (NI) 1995 to be determined but they also provide guidance appropriate to the calculation of traffic noise for more general applications e.g. environmental appraisal of road schemes, highway design and land use planning.

The document consists of three different sections, covering a general method for predicting noise levels at a distance from a highway, additional procedures for more specific situations and a measurement method for situations where the prediction method is not suitable. The prediction method constitutes the preferred calculation technique but in a small number of cases, traffic conditions may fall outside the scope of the prediction method and it will then be necessary to resort to measurement. The prediction method has been used in this instance to determine the likely noise impact from traffic flow increases as a result of the proposed development.

EIS Scoping and Consultation

Prior to commencing the Noise and Vibration Assessment for the ABR project, RPS consulted with the Environmental Health Department of Dublin City Council to discuss and agree the noise survey strategy and noise assessment methodology to be used.

Dublin Port Company maintains a complaint register recording all noise nuisance complaints received from the public in relation to activities at Dublin Port. In recent years, there have been two noise nuisance complaints received by the Port. The first is a source of ongoing complaint from some residents along Pigeon House Road and relates primarily to the existing activities at the MTL facility on the south side of the River Liffey. The second is a noise nuisance complaint from an individual at Kincora Avenue in Clontarf and relates to general noise coming from the Port.



Vibration

There is no published Irish guidance relating to vibration during construction activities. When assessing vibration on roads proposed in Ireland, it has been common practice to use guidance from internationally recognised standards.

Limits of transient vibration, above which cosmetic damage could occur, are given numerically in Table 7.1.4 (Ref: BS5228-2:2009). Minor damage is possible at vibration magnitudes which are greater than twice those given in Table 7.1.4, and major damage to a building structure can occur at values greater than four times the tabulated values (definitions of the damage categories are presented in BS7385-1:1990, 9.9).

Table 7.1.4 Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage (Ref BS5228-2:2009)

Type of Building

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (mm/s) in Frequency Range of Predominant Pulse

4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above Reinforced or framed structures.

Industrial and heavy commercial buildings.

50 mm/s at 4 Hz and above

50 mm/s at 4 Hz and above

Unreinforced or light framed structures.

Residential or light commercial buildings.

15 mm/s at 4 Hz increasing to 20 mm/s at 15 Hz

20 mm/s at 15 Hz increasing to 50 mm/s at 40 Hz and above.

British Standard BS 7385 (1993) Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground borne vibration indicates that cosmetic damage should not occur to property if transient vibration does not exceed 15mm/s at low frequencies rising to 20mm/s at 15Hz and 50mm/s at 40Hz. These guidelines refer to relatively modern buildings and therefore, these values should be reduced to 50% or less for more sensitive buildings.

The NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise & Vibration in National Road Schemes recommends that vibration is limited to the values set out in Table 7.1.5 in order to ensure that there is little or no risk of even cosmetic damage to buildings. These values and the values indicated in Table 7.1.5 should be used as guidance for monitoring vibration levels from the construction phase of the proposed scheme.

Table 7.1.5 Recommended Vibration Level Thresholds for NRA Schemes

Allowable Vibration Velocity (Peak Particle Velocity) at the Closest Part of Any Sensitive Property to the Source of Vibration, at a Frequency of:

Less than 10Hz 10 to 50 Hz 50 to 100 Hz (and above)

8mm/s 12.5mm/s 20mm/s



The human body is an excellent detector of vibration, which can become perceptible at levels which are substantially lower than those required to cause building damage. The human body is most sensitive to vibration in the vertical direction (foot to head). The effect of vibration on humans is guided by British Standard 6472:1992. This standard does not give guidance on the limit of perceptibility, but it is generally accepted that vibration becomes perceptible at levels of approximately 0.15 to 0.3 mm/s.

BS 6472 defines base curves, in terms of rms acceleration, which are used to assess continuous vibration. Table 5 of the Standard states that in residential buildings, the base curve should be multiplied by 1.4 at night and by 2 to 4 during the daytime to provide magnitudes at which the probability of adverse comment is low.

In order to assess human exposure to vibration, ideally, measurements need to be undertaken at the point at which the vibration enters the body, i.e. measurements would need to be taken inside properties. However, various conversion factors have been established to convert vibration levels measured at a foundation to levels inside buildings, depending on the structure of the building.

Where vibration is intermittent or occurs as a series of events, the use of Vibration Dose Values (VDVs) is recommended in BS 6472 for the assessment of subjective response to vibration. The VDVs at which it is considered there will be a low probability of adverse comment are drawn from BS 6472 and presented in Table 7.1.6.

Table 7.1.6 Threshold Values for the Evaluation of Disturbance due to Vibration

Place Daytime 16 Hour VDV (ms-1.75)

Night-time 8 Hour VDV (ms-1.75)

Critical working Area 0.11 0.09

Residential 0.22 – 0.43 0.13

Office 0.43 0.361

Workshops 0.87 0.73 These VDV thresholds do not apply unless night-time work was a regular activity at these premises.

Methodology for Noise Monitoring

Two different noise surveys were completed in order to gather the appropriate noise data for the purposes of completing the noise assessment. The first survey involved completing day and night-time surveys to record the existing noise environment at the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the proposed redevelopment. The second survey was completed to record actual noise levels from a number of typical cruise liner vessels using the port.

Five noise monitoring locations were used for the first survey and one location was selected for the second survey. All noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 7.1.1. For the first survey, daytime monitoring was undertaken for one hour at each location in 5-minute logging periods. Night-time monitoring was undertaken in two separate 30 minute periods at each location to record the noise environment during the early (i.e. 23:00 - 02:00) night-time period and the late (i.e. 04:00 - 07:00) night-time period. Night-time monitoring was also completed in



5-minute logging periods. For the second survey, short monitoring periods were used to record particular aspects of the cruise liner activities.

Noise monitoring was carried out on-site using a Bruël & Kjær 2250 Hand Held Analyzer and a Bruël & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator. This instrumentation conforms to the requirements for integrating averaging sound level meters (Type 1) as specified in BS EN 60804. The sound level meter was accurately calibrated before use.

Measurements were made at a height of 1.2m to 1.5m above ground level. The weather conditions were in accordance with the requirements of BS7445: Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise and ISO 1996: Acoustics - Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environmental Noise.

The following parameters were recorded during each monitoring period:

LAeq The continuous equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level. This is an “average” of the sound pressure level.

LAmax This is the maximum A-weighed sound level measured during the sample period.

LAmin This is the minimum A-weighted sound level measured during the sample period.

LA10 This is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for noise for 10% of the sample period.

LA90 This is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for 90% of the sample period.

Noise Model

The area covered by the ABR project was modelled using CadnaA noise modelling software. The CadnaA noise modelling software package uses the ISO9613 prediction methodology along with a range of topographical and ordnance data collected on the surrounding area to build up a picture of the noise environment in the vicinity of sensitive receptors in the study area. The software was used to build a 3-dimensional model of all features which may affect the generation and propagation of noise in the vicinity of the existing and proposed port.

The CadnaA noise model was used for predicting cumulative noise levels at various stage of the construction phase and for predicting the cumulative noise levels from existing and proposed scenarios for the operational phase of the proposed development.

7.1.2 Existing Environment

Noise Survey at Nearest Sensitive Receptors

Noise monitoring was undertaken at five locations to determine the existing noise environment at these locations. The noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 7.1.1. Subjective observations were recorded during each survey. Tables 7.1.7 to 7.1.11 present the noise data that was recorded at each of the five noise monitoring locations.



Table 7.1.7 Noise Monitoring Results - Location 1

Monitoring Time Period

Measured

LAeq

dB(A)

Measured

LAmax

dB(A)

Measured

LAmin

dB(A)

Measured

LA10

dB(A)

Measured

LA90

dB(A)

Daytime (29/05/13)

12:12 - 12:17 67.1 80.8 55.9 70.3 59.9

12:17 - 12:22 67.1 81.2 54.7 69.7 59.6

12:22 - 12:27 67.3 81.3 55.3 70.1 61.6

12:28 - 12:33 67.4 82.1 55.2 69.8 60.7

12:33 - 12:38 67.8 79.5 57.9 71.0 61.7

12:39 - 12:44 67.7 84.3 53.8 70.9 60.4

12:44 - 12:49 67.3 79.5 53.9 70.3 58.8

12:50 - 12:55 66.9 81.1 54.5 70.3 58.3

12:55 - 13:00 66.5 80.8 53.8 69.6 57.8

13:01 - 13:06 66.3 79.0 54.5 69.6 58.6

13:06 - 13:11 66.9 83.4 55.4 70.3 58.6

13:11 - 13:16 67.0 83.2 54.8 70.4 59.5

Combined 67.1 84.3 53.8 70.1 59.6

Night-time (29/05/13 - 30/5/13)

23:41 - 23:46 60.9 74.4 46.0 65.5 48.5

23:47 - 23:52 62.8 74.1 47.5 67.5 51.2

23:52 - 23:57 58.0 69.8 45.1 62.7 46.8

23:58 - 00:03 59.5 73.4 44.7 64.3 46.9

00:03 - 00:08 57.7 71.9 43.4 61.2 45.5

00:09 - 00:14 58.2 70.9 44.1 62.7 46.4

Combined 59.9 74.4 43.4 64.0 47.6 05:29 - 05:34 60.9 82.8 49.1 61.9 50.8

05:34 - 05:39 61.0 72.2 49.9 65.1 52.1

05:40 - 05:45 61.2 70.8 52.2 64.8 54.8

05:45 - 05:50 58.4 69.4 49.6 62.2 51.7

05:51 - 05:56 59.6 78.8 50.1 62.6 51.9

05:56 - 06:01 61.2 72.8 51.6 64.8 53.6

Combined 60.5 82.8 49.1 63.6 52.5




Monitoring Time

Period

Measured LAeq

dB(A)

Measured LAmax dB(A)

Measured LAmin dB(A)

Measured LA10

dB(A)

Measured LA90

dB(A)

Daytime (29/05/13)

13:36 - 14:41 56.7 73.6 44.0 60.0 46.1

13:42 - 13:47 66.2 82.4 42.5 65.7 44.5

13:47 - 13:52 64.1 81.5 42.9 63.6 45.0

13:53 - 13:58 62.8 79.8 43.6 62.7 46.7

13:58 - 14:03 64.6 82.3 43.6 66.8 46.2

14:03 - 14:08 62.6 79.2 43.1 63.2 45.5

14:09 - 14:14 67.1 84.3 43.5 68.7 46.6

14:14 - 14:19 57.9 72.5 49.6 61.1 50.8

14:20 - 14:25 66.9 81.9 44.1 68.8 47.3

14:25 - 14:30 56.8 71.2 42.3 61.0 44.7

14:31 - 14:36 63.0 79.0 43.4 62.5 45.8

14:36 - 14:41 64.0 85.1 43.8 64.0 45.9

Combined 63.9 85.1 42.3 64.0 46.3

Night-time (29/05/13 - 30/5/13)

23:00 - 23:05 65.6 79.2 42.5 68.7 44.5

23:06 - 23:11 60.3 73.6 42.6 64.3 47.1

23:11 - 23:16 57.6 77.0 43.1 60.3 46.8

23:17 - 23:22 63.9 78.7 42.3 67.5 44.7

23:22 - 23:27 57.1 70.2 42.1 60.8 46.0

23:28 - 23:33 58.5 71.8 42.0 62.4 46.0

Combined 61.7 79.2 42.0 64.0 46.0 04:49 - 04:54 43.7 59.4 38.9 45.3 41.3

04:55 - 05:00 45.9 58.9 39.8 49.2 41.4

05:00 - 05:05 45.6 59.2 40.3 47.5 42.6

05:06 - 05:11 47.1 65.7 40.6 48.3 42.4

05:11 - 05:16 57.6 75.2 40.5 58.9 42.6

05:17 - 05:22 56.4 71.4 41.8 58.4 43.8

Combined 52.9 75.2 38.9 51.3 42.4




Monitoring Time

Period

Measured LAeq

dB(A)



Measured LA10

dB(A)

Measured LA90

dB(A)

Daytime (29/05/13)

15:13 - 15:18 62.6 74.0 51.1 65.4 56.1

15:18 - 15:23 61.9 72.6 50.5 64.4 56.8

15:24 - 15:29 61.2 72.0 47.5 64.1 53.8

15:29 - 15:34 61.7 68.8 52.7 63.9 57.7

15:35 - 15:40 60.5 85.6 47.2 62.7 51.8

15:40 - 15:45 62.1 76.9 48.7 64.4 54.9

15:45 - 15:50 61.2 69.7 48.1 64.0 55.0

15:51 - 15:56 61.1 69.6 48.8 63.9 55.2

15:56 - 16:01 70.7 84.8 51.8 72.1 57.1

16:02 - 16:07 62.5 69.9 54.3 65.3 57.5

16:07 - 16:12 63.0 71.0 53.7 66.0 58.1

16:13 - 16:18 62.6 70.5 54.4 64.7 58.4

Combined 63.8 85.6 47.2 65.1 56.1

Night-time (30/5/13)

00:35 - 00:40 54.9 63.8 42.6 59.1 46.7

00:41 - 00:46 53.4 62.8 41.1 57.4 43.2

00:46 - 00:51 53.7 63.0 41.6 57.9 44.5

00:52 - 00:57 53.2 65.1 41.3 58.2 43.1

00:57 - 01:02 53.6 62.1 42.2 57.9 44.9

01:03 - 01:08 53.2 62.6 40.3 57.3 42.5

Combined 53.7 65.1 40.3 58.0 44.2 04:05 - 04:10 47.3 59.3 39.9 51.6 41.5

04:10 - 04:15 49.2 62.4 39.8 54.2 41.2

04:16 - 04:21 51.2 63.9 40.4 55.7 42.4

04:22 - 04:27 48.3 61.7 39.4 51.7 41.3

04:27 - 04:32 56.7 71.7 39.4 61.3 41.1

04:33 - 04:38 53.7 67.0 41.2 57.8 43.2

Combined 52.4 71.7 39.4 55.4 41.8




Monitoring Time

Period

Measured LAeq

dB(A)



Measured LA10

dB(A)

Measured LA90

dB(A)

Daytime (25/06/13)

12:07 - 12:12 61.1 83.5 49.8 60.0 52.3

12:13 - 12:18 63.8 77.6 54.7 66.5 57.5

12:19 - 12:24 60.6 81.8 53.3 62.8 55.0

12:24 - 12:29 56.6 75.8 49.7 58.4 51.9

12:30 - 12:35 58.4 80.3 48.6 54.5 50.6

12:35 - 12:40 58.0 72.7 49.1 60.6 52.3

12:41 - 12:46 61.7 81.8 49.5 64.3 53.7

12:46 - 12:51 56.2 77.1 47.2 56.6 49.5

12:52 - 12:57 54.6 70.6 48.7 57.3 50.7

12:58 - 13:03 58.4 71.7 50.1 61.4 53.4

13:03 - 13:08 61.0 75.7 51.8 63.5 53.9

13:09 - 13:14 57.4 70.0 50.2 60.0 52.6

Combined 59.7 83.5 47.2 60.5 52.8

Night-time (25/06/13 - 26/6/13)

23:41 - 23:46 45.0 71.0 39.2 46.8 40.2

23:47 - 23:52 46.6 61.2 38.7 49.4 40.5

23:52 - 23:57 51.1 69.8 39.5 50.6 40.8

23:58 - 00:03 47.3 60.5 40.0 50.7 42.2

00:03 - 00:08 48.1 60.5 41.6 51.0 43.6

00:09 - 00:14 46.9 60.7 40.2 50.2 42.1

Combined 47.9 71.0 38.7 49.8 41.6 04:40 - 04:45 49.4 68.1 43.2 51.9 45.0

04:45 - 04:50 48.0 57.4 42.9 51.5 44.4

04:51 - 04:56 50.4 59.6 44.1 52.3 46.6

04:57 - 05:02 50.3 59.3 45.8 52.0 48.1

05:02 - 05:07 50.7 59.9 46.2 53.4 47.4

05:11 - 05:16 51.3 61.2 45.2 53.6 48.1

Combined 50.1 68.1 42.9 52.5 46.6




Monitoring Time

Period

Measured LAeq

dB(A)



Measured LA10

dB(A)

Measured LA90

dB(A)

Daytime (25/06/13)

13:24 - 13:29 68.0 82.9 54.2 71.4 59.0

13:30 - 13:35 66.6 79.0 49.8 69.4 55.0

13:35 - 13:40 66.9 76.4 50.6 70.7 56.6

13:41 - 13:46 67.5 78.5 48.3 71.1 56.2

13:47 - 13:52 67.4 76.0 51.9 71.0 57.3

13:52 - 13:57 65.8 77.5 49.8 69.4 53.7

13:58 - 14:03 66.5 74.2 53.9 70.5 55.3

14:04 - 14:09 66.5 75.8 52.8 70.1 56.7

14:09 - 14:14 66.1 78.8 52.6 69.7 55.6

14:15 - 14:20 67.8 78.8 52.6 70.6 58.7

14:20 - 14:25 66.8 79.2 52.0 70.5 57.3

14:26 - 14:31 68.0 83.0 51.3 71.4 54.3

Combined 67.1 83.0 49.8 70.5 56.3

Night-time (25/06/13 - 26/6/13)

23:00 - 23:05 66.0 75.3 44.6 69.8 53.3

23:05 - 23:10 65.5 77.4 46.8 70.3 52.7

23:11 - 23:16 61.6 78.6 37.2 63.8 40.1

23:16 - 23:21 63.6 74.0 35.8 68.4 44.5

23:21 - 23:26 65.5 75.8 42.6 69.9 51.6

23:27 - 23:32 63.0 76.3 36.2 67.8 42.9

Combined 64.5 78.6 35.8 68.3 47.5 04:00 - 04:05 65.4 84.5 36.9 67.0 40.1

04:05 - 04:10 64.3 83.8 35.0 62.4 36.7

04:11 - 04:16 61.7 82.0 34.1 59.8 35.9

04:17 - 04:22 65.8 83.9 34.6 64.0 36.9

04:23 - 04:28 64.6 82.8 35.4 67.2 37.9

04:28 - 04:33 67.4 84.7 36.4 71.1 38.5

Combined 65.2 84.7 34.1 65.3 37.7



Cruise Liner Noise Survey

On the morning of 19th August 2013, a noise survey was conducted to record the noise levels associated with the arrival, berthing, idling and other activities of two cruise liner vessels at Dublin Port. The purpose of the noise survey was to record the noise environment before the arrival of the vessels and the noise environment during arrival and whilst at berth of the vessels and to record if there was any significant difference to the overall noise environment as a result of the cruise liner movements and activities. Table 7.1.12 below includes a range of noise measurements taken from 05:46 to 08:56 which includes the activities associated with the arrival of two cruise liner vessels.

Table 7.1.12 Noise Survey of Cruise Liner Vessels

Monitoring

Time Period

LAeq

dB(A) LAmax dB(A)

LAmin dB(A)

LA10 dB(A)

LA90 dB(A)

Comments

Location 6 - 19/08/13

05:46 – 05:51 73.3 94.3 48.9 76.6 52.5 Cruise Liner 1 not in sight yet- noise sources are traffic and general port activities.

Road traffic including heavy goods vehicles was the dominant noise source during the period leading up to the arrival of the first liner which was first spotted circa 06:40.

05:51 – 05:56 71.3 87.0 51.2 74.6 54.0

05:57 – 06:02 71.8 87.8 51.8 75.1 55.3

06:02 – 06:07 74.2 97.6 51.7 77.7 55.6

06:08 – 06:13 71.0 86.0 51.5 75.2 55.2

06:14 – 06:19 73.5 88.2 52.3 77.1 55.6

06:19 – 06:24 72.7 88.2 52.8 76.4 56.6

06:25 – 06:30 73.8 88.4 52.8 78.1 57.7

06:30 – 06:35 73.9 94.0 51.9 77.5 58.7

06:36 – 06:41 75.1 88.8 52.9 79.6 57.0

06:52 – 06:57 75.2 89.8 56.1 78.6 62.8 Liner 1 entering the port area.

06:58 – 07:03 74.7 86.8 57.0 78.9 63.1 Liner 1 getting into position to turn

07:03 – 07:08 76.5 91.8 59.3 79.5 66.4 Liner 1 sounded the horn at 07:06

07:09 – 07:14 76.6 97.1 54.8 80.3 63.2 Liner 1 moving into position to allow passengers to depart.

07:15 – 07:20 76.3 89.1 61.2 80.4 66.1

07:20 – 07:25 77.0 92.5 55.4 80.7 66.7

07:26 – 07:31 78.0 91.6 59.7 81.4 69.2 Liner 1 stopped at dock

07:31 – 07:36 77.4 95.3 54.9 81.0 64.5



Monitoring

Time Period

LAeq

dB(A) LAmax dB(A)

LAmin dB(A)

LA10 dB(A)

LA90 dB(A)

Comments

Location 6 - 19/08/13

07:37 – 07:42 77.3 91.6 61.7 80.5 68.5

07:43 – 07:48 77.8 93.9 58.4 81.0 66.8

07:48 – 07:53 77.1 88.6 59.5 80.8 68.6 Coaches arrive to transport passengers. 07:53 – 07:58 77.4 92.5 61.7 80.8 69.5

07:59 – 08:04 77.1 92.0 59.1 80.8 68.6

08:06 – 08:11 77.4 88.1 62.9 80.7 69.2 2nd liner in sight

08:12 – 08:17 78.9 97.8 61.8 80.7 68.9 2nd liner entering port area alongside liner 1.

08:18 – 08:23 74.4 88.0 60.9 77.6 67.8 2nd liner getting into position to turn

08:23 – 08:28 76.4 89.0 58.2 79.9 64.7 2nd liner turning and stopped around 08:25

08:29 – 08:34 75.7 88.8 65.3 78.8 69.7 2nd liner stopped at dock in such a position as impossible to see activities occurring.

08:35 – 08:40 76.9 94.0 64.3 79.3 69.9 Hard to tell if passengers are getting off liner 2 but it appears to have stopped fully.

08:41 – 08:46 76.0 89.8 64.2 79.0 69.9 Both liners appear to have stopped altogether

08:46 – 08:51 76.3 86.8 62.8 79.6 69.4 No activity from either liner

Road traffic was the dominant noise source during the monitoring period beginning at 05:46 and ceasing at 08:51. The road running alongside the port where the meter was stationed for this period is a very busy road.

The cruise liner noise was recognisable but did not in any way stand out with the exception of the foghorn which sounded at 07:06. Many of the cars travelling by on Pigeon House Road slowed down and some even stopped to view the cruise liners as they arrived. Passengers of Cruise Liner 1 and general pedestrians were walking alongside the meter from circa 08:38 onwards.



7.1.3 Construction Phase Impacts

Construction Noise - General

A detailed noise model was created of the Port and surrounding noise sensitive receptors in order to predict the cumulative noise level associated with construction phase activities at the nearest noise sensitive properties. In order to create the noise model, it was necessary to define the various typical plant and equipment to be used as part of the construction phase activities. Table 7.1.13 includes a list of the most significant plant/equipment likely to be used during the construction phase of the proposed development.

Table 7.1.13 Typical Plant and Equipment to be used During Construction Phase (Ref: BS5228:2009)

Activity / Plant (Reference from Annex C & D,

BS5228:2009)

Power Rating (kW)

Equipment Size, Weight

(Mass), Capacity

Sound Power Level (dB)

Demolition: Breaking up concrete - Breaker mounted on wheeled backhoe (C1 - Ref 1)

59 7.4t, 1799mm tool, 125 bar

120

Demolition: Dumping brick rubble - tracked excavator loading dump truck (C1 - Ref10)

228 44t 113

Demolition: Tracked excavator (C2 - Ref 3) 2102 22t 106

Clearing Site: Dozer (C2 - Ref 1) 142 20t 103

Clearing Site: Tracked excavator (C2 - Ref 3) 102 22t 106

Clearing Site: Wheeled backhoe loader (C2 - Ref 8) 62 8t 96

Ground Excavation: Dozer (C2 - Ref 12) 142 20t 109

Ground Excavation: Tracked excavator (C2 - Ref 14)

226 40t 107

Ground Excavation: Wheeled loader (C2 - Ref 27) 193 - 108

Distribution of Material: Tipper Lorry (C8 - Ref 20) 107

Rolling & Compaction: Roller (C2 - Ref 38) 145 18t 101

Piling: Tubular Steel Piling - hydraulic hammer - (C3 - Ref 3)

240mm diameter

116

Pumping Water: Water pump (C2 - Ref 45) 20 6 in 93

Dredging: Ship Chain Bucket (D12 - Ref 1) 35m long 124

Dredging: Loading dredged aggregates [Wheeled Loader] (D12 - Ref 5)

93 112

Predicted Impact of Construction Noise from Proposed Development

Where construction activity takes place for a development in the vicinity of residential properties, it is standard practice that the activities would operate between the hours of 08:00



and 18:00 on Monday to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and there will be no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

The construction phasing to be adopted for the proposed development is detailed in the Construction Programme which is included in Appendix 4 of the EIS. The programme illustrates that not all activities taking place during each phase will occur simultaneously. However, in order to present a worst-case construction phase noise impact that incorporates the fact that there will be cross-over of noise generating activities between the construction phases, two separate worst-case snapshots of the construction period have been created in the noise model.

• Construction Phase Scenario 1 includes works within the Alexandra Basin West and dredging within River Liffey Channel and works at Berths 52/53; and

• Construction Phase Scenario 2 includes works at the North Wall Quay Extension, the Marina Wall and dredging within the River Liffey Channel and further works at Berth 52/53.

Both of the above scenarios are very much worst-case scenarios and in reality they represent an over-estimation of the likely construction phase noise impacts associated with the proposed development at any one time.

While there are a significant number of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed activities that have the potential to be impacted by construction phase noise associated with the proposed development, they are generally grouped together in three approximate areas in relation to the Port, namely:

• South of the Port, centred on Pigeon House Road and York Road;

• West of the Port in the approximate area of the O2 Arena; and

• North of the Port in the areas of Clontarf closest to the Port.

There are hundreds of receptors in each of these general areas and rather than include all of these, a number of receptors have been selected and included in the noise model. These selected receptors are representative of those properties that are nearest to the proposed works and most likely to be impacted by the proposed construction phase activities. These properties are also representative of the properties adjacent to them but not included in the noise model.

Table 7.1.14 includes the worst-case predicted noise levels for Construction Phase Scenario 1, while Table 7.1.15 includes the worst-case predicted noise levels for Construction Phase Scenario 2. Both of these tables include worst-case predicted noise levels from all plant/equipment with and without the dredging activity, just to illustrate the contribution from the dredging activity to the predicted noise levels at each sensitive receptor. Figure 7.1.2 illustrates the noise contours from Construction Phase Scenario 1 in the vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2, while Figure 7.1.3 illustrates the noise contours for the same scenario in the vicinity of the nearest properties in Clontarf. The noise contours from Construction Phase Scenario 2 are illustrated for the same locations in Figures 7.1.4 and 7.1.5.



Table 7.1.14 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties from Construction Phase (Scenario 1)

Property

Reference Nearest Property (See Figure 7.1.1)

Predicted Worst-Case Construction Noise [Including

Dredging] (dBA) 1 51 York Road 54.8 [65.9]

2 1 Alex Quay 55.1 [65.6]

3 1 Pigeon House Road 51.2 [58.4]






9 The O2 58.2 [60.2]

10 Point Hotel 60.8 [61.0]

11 210 Clontarf Road 44.3 [44.6]

12 22 Vernon Court 44.3 [44.6]

13 221 Clontarf Road 44.0 [44.3]

Figure 7.1.2 Noise Contours from Construction Phase Scenario 1 in the Vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2



Figure 7.1.3 Noise Contours from Construction Phase Scenario 1 in the Vicinity of Clontarf

Table 7.1.15 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties from Construction Phase (Scenario 2)

Property Reference

Nearest Property (See Figure 7.1.1)

Predicted Worst-Case Construction Noise [Including

Dredging] (dBA) 1 51 York Road 59.5 [67.1]

2 1 Alex Quay 59.5 [66.8]







9 The O2 68.3 [68.5]

10 Gibson Hotel 66.3 [66.4]

11 210 Clontarf Road 42.4 [42.8]

12 22 Vernon Court 42.4 [42.8]

13 221 Clontarf Road 42.4 [42.8]



Figure 7.1.4 Noise Contours from Construction Phase Scenario 2 in the Vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2

Figure 7.1.5 Noise Contours from Construction Phase Scenario 2 in the Vicinity of Clontarf



Tables 7.1.14 and 7.1.15 illustrate the worst-case predicted cumulative construction noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors at two different stages of the construction process. These worst-case predicted noise levels have been calculated on the basis that all items of plant/equipment are at the nearest point of their usage to the respective noise sensitive property. Whereas the majority of plant/equipment will operate within a relatively small area to complete a certain construction task, the dredging activity will cover a very large area. Therefore, worst-case predicted noise levels including dredging (in brackets in Tables 7.1.14 and 7.1.15) will only occur for a small number of days while dredging is at or close to its nearest point to the respective property.

In order to determine the noise impact associated with the worst-case predicted construction noise levels included in Tables 7.1.14 and 7.1.15, the predicted noise levels have been compared to the permissible construction noise levels included in the NRA Guidelines (see Table 7.1.1) and the derived threshold noise limits using the ABC Method from BS5228:2009 (see Table 7.1.2). Table 7.1.16 illustrates whether the worst-case predicted construction noise levels are within the respective noise threshold limits outlined in the NRA Guidelines and BS5228:2009.

Table 7.1.16 Comparison of Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels with Noise Threshold Limits in NRA Guidelines (2004) and BS5229:2009

Property Ref


Predicted Worst-Case Construction Noise*

(dBA)

Noise Threshold Limit (LAeq) (dBA)

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

NRA Guidelines

BS5228:2009 ABC

Method 1 51 York Road 65.9 67.1 70 70

2 1 Alex Quay 65.6 66.8 70 70

3 1 Pigeon House Road

58.4 60.2 70 70


69.2 68.0 70 70


59.5 64.5 70 70


58.7 60.2 70 70


57.4 58.5 70 65


57.0 57.8 70 65

9 The O2 60.2 68.5 70 70

10 Gibson Hotel 61.0 66.4 70 70

11 210 Clontarf Road 44.6 42.8 70 70

12 22 Vernon Court 44.6 42.8 70 70

13 221 Clontarf Road 44.3 42.8 70 70



* Worst-Case Predictions Include Dredging

Table 7.1.16 illustrates that worst-case predicted noise from construction activities associated with the proposed development are within the guideline threshold limits included in the NRA Guidelines (2004) and BS5228:2009. These worst-case predicted noise levels assume a level of simultaneous activity of plant/equipment which will not occur in reality and hence is an over-estimation of the likely worst-case noise levels that will actually occur during the construction phase. The average noise levels from construction activities at the nearest receptors throughout the majority of the construction period are likely to be significantly lower than the worst-case predicted noise levels included in Table 7.1.16.

While the predicted worst-case construction noise levels from the proposed development are within the required threshold limits, it is standard practice to recommend for mitigation measures to be put in place in order to ensure that construction noise levels are reduced to the lowest possible levels where practicable. Noise mitigation measures for construction activities are outlined in Section 7.1.5.

Construction Phase Traffic Impacts

During the construction phase, there will be an increase in traffic flows primarily in the Dublin Port Tunnel as plant/equipment and materials are delivered to the Port. The extent of traffic associated with the delivery of materials will be small in a relative context as the largest movement of materials will be within the port site where dredged materials will be reused within the port area as part of the proposed construction phase. The majority of material movements will be by barge on the River Liffey or by HGV movements between Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52 / 53.

In terms of the changes to traffic flow levels on the local road network, construction phase traffic movements will be less than 5% on the Dublin Port Tunnel at all stages of the construction phase and considerable less than this on all other routes. The UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7) states that it takes a 25% increase or a 20% decrease in traffic flows in order to get a 1dB(A) change in traffic noise levels. On this basis, traffic noise levels associated with the construction phase of the proposed development will be significantly less than 1dB(A).

It is generally accepted that it takes an approximate 3dB(A) increase in noise levels to be perceptible to the average person (Ref: NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Scheme, 2004). Based on this reference, traffic noise increases on the local road network will be imperceptible.

Construction Phase Vibration Impacts

Some of the construction phase activities associated with the proposed construction phase have the potential to result in vibration impacts at sensitive receptors if sufficiently close to the respective receptor. Activities included in the proposed construction phase that have the potential to result in vibration impacts include piling and to a lesser extent demolition activities and dredging.

BS5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and open Sites - Part 2: Vibration gives pages of reference data relating to measured vibration levels associated with different types of piling activities in different ground strata. BS5228:2009



references vibration levels measured for various types of bored piling / cast-in-situ piling (using hammer), a technique which reflects the type of piling that will be conducted as part of the proposed development.

Reference 11 from Table D1 of BS5228:2009 indicates that bored piling on loose rock over weathered rock over rock, gives a measured PPV of 1.2mm/s at 30m. The nearest piling activity on North Wall Quay Extension to the O2 will be over 70m away while the nearest piling activity on Poolbeg Marina will be over 120m from the nearest property on Pigeon House Road. Therefore, the worst-case vibration levels from the proposed construction works will be significantly less than 1mm/s, which is substantially below the vibration threshold limits outlined in Tables 7.1.4 and 7.1.5.

On the basis of the discussion included above, there will be no significant vibration impact associated with the construction phase of the proposed development.

7.1.4 Operational Phase Impacts

Noise Impact from Plant/Equipment as a result of Proposed Development

The assessment of operational phase plant/equipment has two aspects to it, which are described below:

• Changes in the number and location of items of plant/equipment within the Port; and

• Changes to the usage of the Port in terms of numbers and timing of vessels using port facilities and hence altering the extent to which plant/equipment is used.

This section includes an assessment of the potential noise impact associated with the addition of new plant/equipment to the proposed site or the movement of existing plant/equipment from one location to another within the proposed development site.

The ABR project includes changes to the arrangement of berths at Alexandra Basin West and at Berth 52/53. These changes are described in Chapter 4 – Project Description. There are no proposals to add any other noise emitting plant/equipment to the Port operations. Port plant/equipment such as mobile cranes will be replaced on an ongoing basis as plant/equipment reaches its end of life and the replacement of such plant/equipment with newer models (generally with improved performance in relation to noise) will decrease the general operation noise from the Port over time.

In order to assess the potential noise impact associated with the changes to the arrangement of berths at Alexandra Basin West and at Berth 52/53, a detailed noise model was created of the existing and proposed Port operations using CadnaA noise modelling software. Both models contained all existing noise sources within the Port (including the MTL facility on the south side of the River Liffey), with the only difference being the locations of the ramps and jetties for the existing and proposed operations.

The sound power level information for each significant piece of plant/equipment was taken from the detailed EFFORTS noise study completed on the activities at Dublin Port. The EFFORTS information was supplemented with direct measurements of plant/equipment taken as part of recent noise surveys completed on Port Activities, most notably the ICAN Noise Report on MTL Facility noise levels completed in April 2011.



The noise inputs into the noise model for plant/equipment included Rubber Tyre Gantries (RTG) [LW - 118dB], RTG beacons [LW - 114dB], Ramps [LW - 115dB], Reach Stackers [LW - 110dB], Straddle Carriers [LW - 114dB], Reefers [LW - 93dB], Mobile Cranes [LW - 109dB], Back Reach Gantry Cranes (BRGC) [LW - 98dB].

Table 7.1.17 contains the predicted noise levels for the existing Port activities and the predicted noise level for the proposed development based on the change in location of various ramps and jetties. The noise models assume that all items of plant/equipment in the Port are active simultaneously and hence represent a worst-case scenario in terms of Port noise emissions. Figures 7.1.6 and 7.1.7 illustrate the noise contours from existing and proposed operations in the vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2.

Table 7.1.17 Noise Model Predictions of Existing and Proposed Operational Phase Noise from Activities at Dublin Port

Property Ref


Prediction Noise Level (LAeq) from Noise Model [dB(A)]

Existing Port Proposed Development 1 51 York Road 50.5 51.9

2 1 Alex Quay 50.8 52.3

3 1 Pigeon House Rd 50.2 50.1






9 The O2 54.2 53.0

10 Gibson Hotel 55.5 55.8

11 210 Clontarf Road 56.7 56.7

12 22 Vernon Court 56.3 56.3

13 221 Clontarf Road 56.0 56.0



Figure 7.1.6 Noise Contours from Existing Port Operations in the Vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2

Figure 7.1.7 Noise Contours from Proposed Port Operations in the Vicinity of York Road / Pigeon House Road and the O2



Table 7.1.17 illustrates that the changes to the locations of various ramps and jetties as a result of the proposed development will result in minor increases and decreases in the predicted noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. There will be no significant increase in the noise impact at the nearest receptors from the changes in the location of plant/equipment as a result of the proposed development.

Noise Impact from Vessel Movements into and out of Port

This section includes an assessment of the potential noise impact associated with the change in vessel movements into and out of Dublin Port as a result of the proposed development.

The purpose of the proposed development is to upgrade the Port’s access channel and berths to ultimately cater for a range of ships significantly larger than can currently be accommodated. These include container ships (draughts up to 12.5m, capacity > 3,500 TEU), dry bulk ships (draughts up to 12.5m, capacity of approximately 55,000 tonnes), deep-sea Ro-Ro ships (draughts up to 12m, length approximately 300m), multipurpose (freight and passenger) Ro-Ro ferries (length of approximately 240m) and cruise ships (draught 9m, length 340m).

The proposed development will also play an important part in enabling the Port to cater for 60 million gross tonnes of cargo by 2040 by achieving an average growth rate of circa 2.5% per annum. The Port facilities in their current capacity would not be able to accommodate a growth rate of 2.5% per annum until 2040. The proposed redevelopment will enable the 2.5% growth rate to be accommodated by maximising the efficiency of the Port in terms of berth locations and flexibility (i.e. making berths suitable for different types of ship and cargo).

The ABR project Statement of Need presents projections for the growth in the number of various ship types between 2013 and 2040 with the proposed development assumed to be in place (see Chapter 1 - Introduction ).

By far the biggest change in terms of number of ships using the port will be the increase in the number of Ro-Ro ships which is expected to be approximately doubled (i.e. 4,928 in 2013 to 9,696 in 2040).

In relative terms, the ship numbers will stay similar for Lo-Lo (i.e. 1,101 to 1,066), bulk liquid (i.e. 445 to 403) and break bulk (i.e. 39 to 50). The number of ships will increase for bulk solid (i.e. 338 to 464), although these number will still be low in the overall context of the Port activities.

While the number of cruise passengers is expected to increase significantly from 106,324 to a target of 342,345 in 2040, the actual number of ship visits will be relatively modest, increasing from 87 in 2013 to 160 in 2040. The reason for the more modest increase in number of cruise ships compared to passenger numbers is the fact that the size of cruise ships using the Port are expected to be significantly larger.

The most significant difference on a daily basis will be the increase in the number of Ro-Ro vessels using the Port from approximately 14 per day in 2013 to approximately 27 per day in 2040.

No significant change is expected in terms of daily usage by Lo-Lo, break liquid, break bulk and bulk solid vessels.



Cruise ships have a more seasonal pattern to their arrival and departure from the Port. During the 2013 peak summer season there were occasions when 2-3 cruise ships were berthed at the Port. By 2040, no significant increase in the number of cruise ships are expected in any one day but the number of days when 2-3 cruise ships are berthed are expected to increase.

The noise model contours included in Figure 7.1.7 and the predicted noise levels included in Table 7.1.17 assume all plant/equipment is active simultaneously in the port and is a snapshot in time during a worst-case day in 2040 with all berths and plant active.

Based on these worst-case predicted noise levels, worst-case predicted noise levels along York Road and Pigeon House Road are significantly lower than existing daytime ambient (i.e. LAeq) noise levels and lower than existing daytime background (i.e. LA90) noise levels measured in the vicinity of these properties (see Table 7.1.7).

The worst-case predicted noise levels for a fully operational Port in 2040 are below ambient daytime noise levels in the direction of the O2 but above daytime background noise levels (see Table 7.1.8). However, the noise levels included in Table 7.1.8 were taken at the back of the O2 and the Gibson Hotel and are representative of the residential properties in this location. These noise levels are considerably lower than ambient and background noise levels at the front of the O2 and Gibson Hotel along East Wall Road, which would experience similar noise levels to those in Table 7.1.7 on account of a similar volume of road traffic noise passing. Using the ambient and background daytime noise levels from Table 7.1.7, worst-case predicted noise levels from a fully operational port will be well below existing ambient and background noise levels in this area.

In the Clontarf direction, worst-case predicted noise levels from 2040 are below existing daytime ambient noise levels in this area and similar to daytime background noise levels.

The dredging activity associated with the proposed development will increase the depth of the Port's navigation channel and will create an improved turning circle for vessels to turn in the channel. The effect of this on future Port activities will be that the Port will be capable of accepting larger vessels than those that currently use the Port. There is no direct relationship between the size of a vessel and the noise generated by such a vessel and therefore, it is not a straightforward conclusion that a larger vessel will produce greater noise. In many respects, most of the noise sources that generate objection in relation to vessels using the Port are non-continuous tonal or impulsive noises such as foghorns or tannoy announcements. These noise sources are independent of the size of the vessel.

In addition to the discussion above, increasing the number of cruise liner vessels using the Port will not necessarily increase the noise levels associated with the Port to a significant degree. Noise measurements taken by RPS (see Table 7.1.12) illustrate that noise level increases are minor and very short-term in nature when cruise liners are entering the port. In this noise survey, while the cruise liner was audible during the short period of time between entering the port and docking, road traffic noise remained the most dominant noise source at the nearest sensitive receptors on Pigeon House Road during the survey period. During this survey, the most prominent noise source relating to the cruise liner (on account of its character) was the foghorn that was briefly sounded upon entering the Port.

Overall, a snapshot of worst-case predicted noise levels from a fully operational port with the proposed development in place (see Table 7.1.17 and Figure 7.1.7) demonstrates that predicted levels are generally below existing daytime ambient (i.e. LAeq) and background (i.e.



LA90) noise levels at all of the nearest noise sensitive properties. A discussion of night-time Port activities is included under a separate heading below.

On account of the difficulties in trying to accurately predict future changes to Port activities that may alter Port operational noise levels, noise mitigation for future Port usage can only be achieved by ongoing noise management being linked to Port activities and senior management within the Port including noise management in the day-to-day decision making processes of the Port. Noise mitigation measures for the future Port activities are discussed in Section 7.1.6.

Noise Impact from Traffic Movements into and out of Port

This section includes an assessment of the potential noise impact associated with the change in traffic movements on the local road network as a result of the proposed development.

Chapter 8 - Material Assets includes a detailed assessment of the traffic impact associated with the proposed development. As part of the transport assessment, detailed traffic flow information has been derived for the existing road network with and without the proposed development in place for various future year scenarios.

In 2018 with the proposed development in place, there will be marginal increases in the traffic flows along a number of routes including Sheriff Street Upper (1.2%), North Wall Quay (0.6%) and Pigeon House Road (0.8%). East Wall Road will experience traffic flow decreases of circa 10%, while the Port Tunnel will experience traffic flow increases of circa 10%. Promenade Road will experience an increase in traffic flows of circa 60%.

The 2023 traffic flows with the proposed development in place will show a similar trend to the 2018 flows, with marginal increases along Sheriff Street Upper (2.3%), North Wall Quay (1.1%) and Pigeon House Road (1.6%). East Wall Road will experience traffic flow decreases of circa 10%, while the Port Tunnel will experience traffic flow increases of circa 20%. Promenade Road will experience an increase in traffic flows of circa 80%.

Projecting forward to 2040 (without the proposed Eastern Bypass in place), traffic flow increases will be greater along Sheriff Street Upper (6.8%), North Wall Quay (3.3%) and Pigeon House Road (4.7%). Traffic flow decreases along East Wall Road will be generally in the range of 4-7% while traffic flow increases on the Port Tunnel will be marginally over 60%. Traffic flow increases along Promenade Road will be circa 150%.

The UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7) states that it takes a 25% increase or a 20% decrease in traffic flows in order to get a 1dB(A) change in traffic noise levels. On this basis, the traffic flow increases along Sheriff Street Upper, North Wall Quay and Pigeon House Road for all year scenarios will result in a traffic noise increase of significantly less than 1dB(A). Traffic flow decreases along East Wall Road will result in traffic noise decreases of significantly less than 1dB(A). For the Port Tunnel, traffic noise increases will be less than 1dB(A) for the 2018 and 2023 scenarios but will be in the 1-3dB(A) for the 2040 scenario. Because of the significant traffic flow increases along Promenade Road, there will be a significant increase in the traffic noise levels along this road.

It is generally accepted that it takes an approximate 3dB(A) increase in noise levels to be perceptible to the average person (Ref: NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Scheme, 2004). Using this reference in the context of the proposed



development, the traffic noise decrease of less than 1dB(A) along East Wall Road and the traffic noise increase of less than 1dB(A) along Sheriff Street Upper, North Wall Quay and Pigeon House Road will be imperceptible to receptors in the vicinity of these roads.

The traffic noise increases of less than 1dB(A) during 2018 and 2023 for the Port Tunnel will be imperceptible, while the increase of between 1-3dB(A) in 2040 is likely to be imperceptible also. The fact that the Port Tunnel is underground will render these increases as being irrelevant in terms of potential impacts on human receptors. By far the largest increases in traffic flows for each scenario (i.e. 2018, 2023 and 2040) will be the increases along Promenade Road. While the traffic noise increases along this route will be perceptible (i.e. >3dB), this is a road through an industrial area and there are no sensitive receptors that will be impacted by these increases in traffic noise levels.

The assessment of traffic noise impacts concludes that there will be no significant traffic noise impact on sensitive receptors in the study area as a result of the proposed development.

Noise Impact from Night-time Port Activities

This section includes an assessment of the potential noise impact associated with any increase in night-time activities within the port as a result of the proposed development. As background noise levels (i.e. LA90) are lower during night-time periods, any increase in port-based activities has the potential to have significant noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the port.

Currently, night activities occur predominantly in the container area east of Ocean Pier, with containers being regularly moved about using rubber tyred gantries and reach stackers. There are no proposals to increase these night-time activities at the Port as part of the proposed development. The assessment of plant/equipment noise associated with the movement of ramps and jetties within the Port illustrated that operational phase noise levels will not change significantly as a result of these changes. Assuming the current level of Port night-time activity, there will be no change to the night-time noise levels at the nearest receptors with the proposed development in place.

Part of works associated with the proposed development (e.g. dredging the navigational channel, dredging the turning circle, dredging Alexandra Basin West) are focused on increasing the capability of the Port for receiving larger vessels. This will enable the Port to accommodate larger ships including cruise liners. It has already been highlighted in this chapter that there is no direct relationship between noise and size of vessel and that non-continuous tonal or impulsive noises (e.g. foghorn, tannoy announcements etc.) were the most likely to generate noise nuisance at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. This was subjectively confirmed in the noise survey detailed in Section 7.1.3, where the foghorn was the most prominent vessel related noise source recorded during the survey.

As cruise liners frequently arrive into Port in the early morning period, it is common for them to arrive in what is technically the night-time period (i.e. 23:00 - 07:00). The noise levels recorded in Section 7.1.3 for cruise liner activity, which include noise levels measured in the night-time period, illustrate that the cruise liner activity does not generally increase noise levels significantly at the nearest noise sensitive properties on Pigeon House Road. The foghorn which sounded at 07:06 (i.e. only just in the daytime period) was by far the most prominent noise source.



The Statement of Need for the proposed development indicates that it is projected that the number of cruise liners using the Port will increase from 87 per year in 2013 to 160 per year in 2040. On the basis of cruise liner activity increasing as a result of the proposed development, there is potential for increased noise impacts at the nearest properties from tonal or impulsive noises such as foghorns (especially if they occur during the night-time period, e.g. 05:00 - 07:00). The startle effect of such noise sources has the potential to wake people up if they occur during sleeping hours. It will be a function of the ongoing noise management of Port activities to ensure that foghorns are only blown when there is a navigational necessity to do so and that noise sources from cruise ships at berth are minimised during the night-time period.

Operational Phase Vibration Impacts

The proposed development will not result in any changes to the operations of the Port that will result in vibration generating activities being placed in close proximity to any of the nearest vibration sensitive receptors in the study area. There will be no vibration impact associated with the operational phase of the proposed development.


Construction Phase

Section 7.1.3 contains an assessment of the noise impact associated with the construction phase of the proposed development at the nearest noise sensitive properties. The assessment of the worst-case predicted construction noise levels using the ABC Method (BS5228:2009) and the NRA Guidelines (2004) indicates that worst-case construction noise levels will be within the required threshold limits included in these guidance documents.

British Standard BS5228:2009 – Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites: Part 1 - Noise outlines a range of measures that can be used to reduce the impact of construction phase noise on the nearest noise sensitive receptors. These measures should be applied by the contractor where appropriate during the construction phase of the proposed development. Examples of some of the best practice measures included in BS5228:2009 are listed below:

ensuring that mechanical plant and equipment used for the purpose of the works are fitted with effective exhaust silencers and are maintained in good working order;

careful selection of quiet plant and machinery to undertake the required work where available;

all major compressors should be ‘sound reduced’ models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers which should be kept closed whenever the machines are in use;

any ancillary pneumatic percussive tools should be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type recommended by the manufacturers;

machines in intermittent use should be shut down in the intervening periods between work;

ancillary plant such as generators, compressors and pumps should be placed behind existing physical barriers, and the direction of noise emissions from plant including exhausts or engines should be placed away from sensitive locations, in order to cause



minimum noise disturbance. Where possible, in potentially sensitive areas, acoustic barriers of enclosures should be utilised around noisy plant and equipment.

Handling of all materials should take place in a manner which minimises noise emissions;

Audible warning systems should be switched to the minimum setting required by the Health & Safety Authority;

A complaints procedure should continue to be operated by the Contractor throughout the construction phase and all efforts should be made to address any noise issues at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

Operational Phase

The assessment of operational phase noise from the proposed development (see Section 7.1.4) included the assessment of plant/equipment noise from the Port, the assessment of the change in vessel movements into and out of the Port, the assessment of the change in traffic flows on the local road network as a result of the proposed development and the assessment of night-time Port activities associated with the proposed development.

The proposed changes to the Port will contribute to the Port accommodating a projected growth rate of 2.5% per annum until 2040, a growth rate which will not be achievable without the proposed development in place. However, the change in location of various plant/equipment as a result of the proposed development will not result in any significant change to operational phase noise levels from the Port. Worst-case predicted operational phase noise levels from the proposed development are lower the existing daytime ambient noise levels (i.e. LAeq) and lower or similar to existing daytime background (i.e. LA90) noise levels at all of the nearest noise sensitive properties. Existing night-time activities in the container area east of Ocean Pier will not be increased as a result of the proposed development.

Traffic flow changes as a result of the proposed development will be manifested in a minor decrease in traffic noise levels on East Wall Road and a minor increase in traffic noise levels on Sheriff Street Upper, North Wall Quay and Pigeon House Road. However these minor changes will not result in any subjectively audible change in the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Traffic noise increases will be in the range of 1-3dB(A) along the Port Tunnel in 2040, however this is still below the noise level increase required for it to be subjectively audible to the majority of people. Furthermore, the underground nature of the Port Tunnel will mean that noise impacts will not be experienced in any case from these road traffic changes. The road traffic increase along Promenade Road is the most significant, however there are no noise sensitive receptors adjacent to this route and therefore no significant noise impact will be experienced.

The potential for increased cruise liner activity to occur during the night-time period (e.g. 05:00 to 07:00) may increase the potential noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive properties by increasing the relative frequency of certain types of prominent noise sources associated with such vessels (e.g. foghorn, tannoy announcements etc.). In order to ensure that there is no increase in noise impact from changes to vessel movements during the night-time period, Dublin Port Company will maintain a Noise Management Plan in relation to the ongoing management of noise issues associated with changes to Port activities. This plan will include the following elements as a minimum:



the provision for noise management to be included as a key consideration for all significant changes made to Port operations by senior management within Dublin Port Company;

the prior assessment of potential noise impacts associated with any alteration to Port activities that may be likely to result in a significant noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive properties;

a range of procedures to mitigate noise during the night-time period, including measures to control tonal/impulsive noise sources (e.g. tannoy announcements) before 07:00 hours.

Vibration

As outlined in Section 7.1.3, the construction phase of the proposed development is not likely to result in any significant vibration impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors. Section 7.1.4 clarified how there will be no operational phase activities likely to give rise to vibration impacts at any of the nearest sensitive receptors.

BS5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and open Sites - Part 2: Vibration includes a range of measures for the reduction of vibration associated with piling activities and for general surface based activities. The contractor will adhere to the mitigation measures included in BS5228:2009 where practicable to reduce vibration levels from general and piling activities to the lowest possible levels.

7.1.6 Residual Impact

During the construction phase, worst-case construction activities may contribute to elevating the noise levels at some of the nearest noise sensitive properties, although worst-case predicted noise levels from construction phase activities are within the required thresholds outlined in the relevant noise guidance documents.

The will be no significant noise impact associated with traffic flow changes as a result of the construction or operational phase of the proposed development. Any minor traffic flow changes associated with the proposed development will not be in the range whereby they would be audible at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

The changes in the location of plant/equipment within the Port will not result in any significant increase in the noise impact at any of the nearest noise sensitive properties. The potential noise impact associated with future changes to Port activities cannot be predicted in advance and therefore noise mitigation measures have been included in this chapter to safeguard against increased noise impacts at the nearest receptors.

There will be no significant vibration impact associated with the proposed development.



7.2 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE

This Section assesses the impacts to air quality and climate associated with the ABR project. It should be read in conjunction with the site layout plans and project description (Chapter 4).

Impacts to air quality will arise during the construction phase, such as from the generation of construction dusts. The construction activities have been examined to identify those that have the potential for air emissions. Where applicable, a series of suitable mitigation measures have been listed.

Activities during the construction phase of the development have the potential to generate greenhouse gases. These emissions are produced by the use of construction materials, materials transport, construction machinery, etc. Greenhouse gas emissions from these sources have been quantified using standard procedures.

The operational development will give rise to emissions from road traffic and shipping similar to the existing operation. Each of these sources has been identified and emissions have been quantified using standard procedures.

7.2.1 Methodology

Baseline Air Quality

Baseline air quality has been determined from the air quality data available from the EPA monitoring network to determine compliance with relevant ambient air legislation. Existing climate has been derived from the Met Éireann 30 year averages.

Construction Stage

There are three potential impacts to atmosphere from the construction stage of the proposed remediation works:

• Dispersion of construction dusts/pollutants during the proposed works (excavations, waste treatment and re-instatement)

• Emissions associated with construction traffic.

• Greenhouse gas emissions from construction operations (traffic, materials and plant)

• Potential odours (such as during dredging)

The methodologies employed for each of these impacts is summarised as follows:

Dust Dispersion

Construction dusts have the potential to cause local impacts through dust nuisance and exposure at the nearest sensitive receptors and also to sensitive ecosystems.



The potential for dust generation from the construction activities associated with the proposed development has been assessed on the basis of a review of the construction methodologies and the proximity of these methodologies to sensitive receptors. Construction activities such as material excavation, treatment and backfilling may generate quantities of dust, particularly in dry weather conditions. In addition, the potential for dust dispersion and deposition depends on local meteorological factors such as rainfall, wind speed and wind direction.

To simulate the potential emissions of the proposed construction stage, emissions have been assessed using a standard air dispersion modelling assessment. The assessment has followed the procedures presented in the EPA Guidance Note AG4 “Air Dispersion Modelling for Industrial Installations”.

The model used for Air Dispersion Modelling is the US EPA approved AERMOD Prime model, which is the current regulatory model in the US and a recommended model under EPA guidance. This model is a third generation model utilising advanced boundary-layer physics. AERMOD is run with a sequence of hourly meteorological conditions to predict concentrations at receptors for averaging times of one hour up to a year. It is necessary to use many years of hourly data to develop a better understanding of the statistics of calculated short-term hourly peaks or of longer time averages. Emission factors for the proposed construction operations have been derived from the AP 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (5th Edition, USEPA).

The most important parameters governing dispersion in the atmosphere are wind speed, wind-direction and the stability or turbulence of the atmosphere. These parameters along with the ambient temperature and inferred mixing heights for each hour were included in the modelling using data from an appropriate met station with validated met data. The nearest met station to Dublin Port is the Dublin Airport Met Station. Three years (2009 to 2011) of met data from Dublin Airport have been employed in the model as per the AG4 guidance note and the year that predicted the highest results for the key averaging periods was 2009.

A series of sensitive residential and other receptors have been modelled as discrete receptors and these are listed in Table 7.2.1.

Table 7.2.1 Discrete Receptors employed in the model

Reference Location Type Grid Reference R1 York Road (west)

Residential 718138, 734130

R2 Pigeon House Road (east) Residential

718677, 734009

R3 Sean Moore Road (east) Residential

718917, 733797

R4 Clontarf Road (Vernon Avenue Junction)

Residential

720113, 735882

R5 Clontarf Road (Seafield Road Junction) Residential

721111, 736183



Construction Traffic

The proposed construction operation will involve a significant movement of materials between Alexandra Basin West and Berth 52/53 including dredge spoil. Dredge spoil originating from Alexandra Basin West will be transported by barge to Berth 52/53 for treatment prior to its use as an infill material. A proportion of the treated dredge material will be transported by road to Graving Dock #2 using the internal Dublin Port Estate road network.

The total contribution of construction traffic to the existing volumes on the public road network is very low (less than 10%) and hence will not be significant in terms of air quality. In addition, the principle haul route will be along the East Wall Road to the Dublin Port Tunnel where there are no residential dwellings. As such, the impact of construction traffic on local air quality is not considered significant and is not further assessed in this report.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This assessment has been carried out to identify sources and quantify total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from the construction activities. The assessment has been carried out using the carbon calculator tool developed by the Environment Agency in the UK specifically for construction projects. The carbon calculator calculates the embodied carbon dioxide (CO2) of materials plus CO2 associated with their transportation. It also considers personal travel, site energy use and waste management.

Odour

The main potential odour from the construction stage relates to the potential for fugitive odours from the dredging operation, particularly hydrogen sulphide, which can be particularly offensive.

During the 2012 maintenance dredge of the berths including Alexandra Basin East and the navigation channel within Dublin Port using the Shoreway Suction Dredger, hydrogen sulphide was not encountered anywhere in the port including when dredging at the entrance to Alexandra Basin West.

During the 2003 dredging of Berths 32 and 33 within Alexandra Basin West, a long reach excavator on a pontoon was used and the dredge material was brought onto the quay wall and processed for shipment to Germany. Again, hydrogen sulphide was not encountered.

Despite the low risk of encountering odours, a series of odour mitigation measures have been presented to minimise the impact of this operation to prevent any nuisance.

Operation Stage

Road Traffic

A prediction of the local impact of traffic-derived pollution during the operation phase was carried out using the Local Assessment model in the Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 as per the NRA guidelines for assessment of impacts to air from road transport. Traffic data was provided in the form of Annual Average Daily Traffic



(AADT) for the existing scenario and a series of future scenario years accounting for growth based on the Dublin Port Masterplan.

Emissions from road traffic have been assessed in terms of their potential for local impact on human health and sensitive ecosystems. The main pollutants of concern from traffic emissions in terms of local impact are nitrogen oxides and particulate matter PM10, and these are compared to the relevant statutory limits on air quality (Table 7.2.3).

Shipping Emissions

The Statement of Need for the ABR project predicts the growth in the numbers of vessels using the port in the period 2012 to 2040. This growth predicts a 71% increase in ship numbers visiting Dublin Port in 2040 when compared with the 2013 volumes. In the absence of improvements in ship propulsion technology (such as the use of LNG) or stricter regulation of emissions control, this increase in shipping numbers will have a resultant increase in the total annual emissions of combustion emissions from the port. These emissions have been quantified using the emission factors presented in the EMEP/EEA Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013, Section 1.A.3.d.i international water borne navigation (see Section 7.2.3).

Assessment Criteria

Construction Dust

During the construction phase, dust is considered the principal risk of pollution to the atmosphere. However, there is no legislative limit for total suspended particles so the guidelines presented by the German Government TA Luft guidance are employed. Under this guidance the construction contractor will be required to maintain monthly dust levels below the guideline of 350mg/m2/day as an annual average at sensitive receptors.

Odours

Like construction dusts there is no legislative limit for odours in Ireland and standard industry guidelines are typically applied. In this case an odour marker compound such as hydrogen sulphide will be used to determine odour nuisance during the dredging works.

Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is one of the key odour compounds that can cause odour nuisance impacts. H2S is a colourless, flammable, extremely hazardous gas with a “rotten egg” odour. It occurs naturally in crude petroleum and natural gas. In addition, H2S is produced by bacterial breakdown of organic materials and may be released during dredging works if there is organic material disturbed in the bed of the basin.

There are no statutory limits for the protection of human health for H2S so guidelines are applied. Two thresholds are employed in this assessment – the threshold for odour nuisance and the threshold for health impacts as presented in Table 7.2.2 (source WHO “Air Quality Guidelines for Europe”, 2000).



Table 7.2.2 Health and Odour Guidelines for H2S

Parameter Averaging Period Guideline Source Health Effects 24 hours 150 µg/m3 World Health Organisation

Odour Annoyance 30 mins 7 µg/m3 World Health Organisation

Combustion Gases

In May 2008, all previous European Directives on air quality were replaced with a new Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC) which has been transposed into Irish legislation as the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 (S.I. 180 of 2011). These Regulations are presented in Table 7.2.3 and represent the main assessment criteria for the operation phase of the proposed development.

The 2011 Regulations specify limit values in ambient air for sulphur dioxide (SO2), lead, benzene, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). These limits are mainly for the protection of human health and are largely based on review of epidemiological studies on the health impacts of these pollutants. In addition, there are limits that apply to the protection of the wider environment (ecosystems and vegetation). All predicted concentrations from the operation of the proposed development are compared to the air quality limits to determine the extent of any impact on residential or ecological receptors.

Table 7.2.3 Limits as Specified in Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 (S.I. 180 of 2011).

Pollutant Criteria Value Nitrogen Dioxide

Hourly limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 18 times/year

200 μg/m3 NO2

Annual limit for protection of human health 40 μg/m3 NO2 Annual limit for protection of vegetation 30 μg/m3 NO + NO2

Benzene Annual limit for protection of human health 5 μg/m3 Carbon Monoxide

Maximum daily 8-hour running mean 10 mg/m3

Lead Annual limit for protection of human health 0.5 μg/m3 Sulphur dioxide

Hourly limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 24 times/year

350 μg/m3

Daily limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 3 times/year

125 μg/m3

Annual limit for protection of vegetation 20 μg/m3 Particulate Matter PM10

24-hour limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 35 times/year

50 μg/m3 PM10

Annual limit for protection of human health 40 μg/m3 PM10 Particulate Matter PM2.5

Annual target value for the protection of human health

25 μg/m3 PM2.5

In addition to the main ambient air pollutants presented in Table 7.2.3, there are also ambient air quality target values for certain metal and hydrocarbon compounds as defined in the



Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, Nickel and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Regulations 2009 (S.I. 58 of 2009). These target values are presented in Table 7.2.4.

Table 7.2.4 Target Values as specified in the Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, Nickel and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Regulations 2009 (S.I. 58 of 2009)

Pollutant Target Value(1) Arsenic 6 ng/m3

Cadmium 5 ng/m3 Nickel 20 ng/m3

Benzo(a)pyrene 1 ng/m3 Note1. For the total content in the PM10 fraction averaged over a calendar year

There are no other Irish or EU legislative limits for other pollutants not listed in Table 7.2.3 or 7.2.4 in ambient air. In the absence of such statutory limits, it is common practice to reference industry standards such as those provided in the Environment Agency of England and Wales IPPC H1 Guidance note “Horizontal Guidance Note H1- Annex (f)” which includes methods for assessing environmental impacts from industrial facilities.

This guidance note presents a series of Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) for the main industrial pollutants and act as guidelines for air quality impact assessment. It is common practice to use these EALs to determine the environmental impact in terms of human health of air emissions and the relevant EALs (short term and long term) for a series of relevant pollutants are presented in Table 7.2.5. Where pollutants have statutory limits (as listed in Tables 7.2.3 and 7.2.4), the guidelines are not listed in Table 7.2.5 as the limit supersedes the guidelines.

Table 7.2.5 Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) as specified in the Environment Agency of England and Wales IPPC H1 Guidance Note

Pollutant Long Term Exposure Guideline

Short Term Exposure Guideline

Total Suspended Particulates Note 1 (μg/m3)

150 NA

Chromium (Cr II and III μg/m3) 5 150

Hexavalent Chromium (μg/m3) 0.0002 -

Copper (Cu μg/m3) 10 200

Mercury (Hg μg/m3) 0.25 7.5

Zinc Oxide (μg/m3) 50 1000

Note1. No ambient guideline for general dusts and the TA Luft (1986) guideline of 150μg/m3 will be used for total suspended particulates (TSP).

Greenhouse Gases

There are no project specific limits or guidelines that apply to new developments in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. There are a number of national and local policy documents that apply including the Climate Change Strategy for Dublin City 2008-2012 and The National



Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012. The changes in greenhouse gases will be compared with the existing emissions for context in the absence of specific limits.

7.2.2 Existing Environment

Receiving Environment

The site of the ABR project is approximately 2km east of Dublin City Centre. The site is bounded to the south by the River Liffey and to the east by the East Wall and the O2 Theatre. The northern boundary is made up of various units along the Alexandra Road and further units make up the eastern boundary.

There are various sensitive receptors (houses, commercial operations) located in the area and these receptors vary in distance from the proposed development. These receptors may experience a change in air quality and the extent of these changes in air quality is identified in this assessment. The nearest sensitive residential receptors to the proposed development are the residential dwellings on York Road, Pigeon House Road, Ringsend Park and Pembroke Cottages approximately 200 metres to the south of the development. Further north there are a number of residential areas along Clontarf Road which lie approximately 1km to the north of the proposed dredge spoil treatment area at Berth 52/53.

The nearest commercial receptors to the proposed development include the various operations along Alexandra Road to the north and east of the site. In addition the O2 Theatre and the Gibson Hotel are the closest operations to the west of the site. To the south of the site there are a number of office developments on York Road and Thorncastle Road.

Ecological receptors can be affected by deposition of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide. The nearest sensitive ecological sites to the proposed development are the Grand Canal pNHA (Site Code 2104), the Royal Canal pNHA (Site Code 2103) and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (Site Code 4024).

Existing Sources in the Area

The main existing sources of pollution in the area around Dublin Port are from road traffic, rail traffic, shipping traffic, space heating, industrial emissions and fugitive emissions from fuel/gas storage.

The road network around Dublin Port is mainly centred on the East Wall Road (R131) which connects the East Link Toll Bridge to the south with the Dublin Port Tunnel to the north and forms the western boundary of the port. This road is heavily trafficked especially at peak times. In addition to this regional road there is a network of internal roads in Dublin Port Estate including the Alexandra Road, the Tolka Quay Road and the Promenade Road which mainly serve HGVs entering and leaving the port.

Irish Rail operates the rail line which runs along Alexandra Road with a number of spurs off this main line. Trains are diesel fired with some localised emissions.

Port operations including shipping emissions (both docked emissions and at sea emissions) and land operations (cranes, trucks, etc.) will also give rise to combustion emissions. These



emissions are dependent on the fuel employed, the size of the vessel and the duration of the operations.

There are two facilities located in Dublin Port that are licensed by the EPA:

• ESB North Wall Generating Station (IPPC Licence P0579-02). This plant currently operates intermittently as a 314MW natural gas fired peaking plant. The plant discharges to atmosphere via one combustion stack (A1-2) and in 2012 total discharges from this stack amounted to 74 tonnes NOx, 0.1 tonnes SO2 and 41,371 tonnes of CO2. Emissions have reduced in recent years due to the reduced operation of this plant.

• Indaver Waste Transfer Station (Waste Licence W0036-02) which accepts and exports hazardous waste from Ireland to Britain and other European countries for recovery, disposal or treatment. This facility also houses a solvent blending facility which allows for the specific blending of solvents to derive a fuel from this waste. There are no major emissions to atmosphere from this facility.

As the Dublin conurbation is subject to a ban on smoky coal under the Air Pollution Act, 1987 (Marketing, Sale and Distribution of Fuels) Regulations (1998-2011), the space heating in the area (both residential and commercial) will be based on gas, oil, biomass and non-bituminous coals. Consequently the levels from space heating in the area are not elevated.

Seveso Sites

In addition to the IPPC licensed facilities, there are a number Seveso sites located in this part of Dublin Port (as regulated under the European Communities (Control of Major Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances) Regulations 2006, S.I. 74 of 2006). These Seveso sites store large volumes of solvent, fuel or gas and hence have the potential to have impacts to atmosphere through fugitive emissions as opposed to scheduled emissions to stack. These sites are listed in Table 7.2.6.

As part of the pre-planning consultation undertaken for the ABR project with An Bord Pleanála, the Bord requested the identification and assessment of all Seveso sites in Dublin Port as part of the planning application. This assessment has been completed and is included in Appendix 7 of the EIS. The assessment identifies the Seveso sites located in Dublin Port and provides an assessment of the potential impact of the ABR project on these sites. The Dublin City Development Plan 2011 to 2017 Appendix 19 identifies a series of consultation distances for Seveso sites that require further assessment and these consultation distances have been used for risk screening of impacts. The two elements of this project, i.e. the Alexandra Basin West and Berth 52/53, lie within the consultation distances of a number of Seveso sites and, as such, further assessment is provided for each of the Seveso sites affected. Where sites are identified as posing a potential risk, (i.e. within the consultation distances supplied by Dublin City Council) a more detailed review has been undertaken. In all cases the nature of the proposed development, coupled with the distances to the Seveso sites has resulted in a low risk of impact. It is therefore concluded that the proposed elements of the ABR project will have no impact on the Seveso site network in the area. This report was sent to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) as part of the EIA consultation process with an invitation to comment on the report. No comments were received from the HSA on this report.



Table 7.2.6 Seveso sites adjacent to the proposed development

Site Seveso Tier Site Nature Distance to Site

Topaz (Shell) Terminal 1 Lower Fuel Storage 200m ESB North Wall Lower Generating Station 150m Irish Rail Lower Fuel Storage 300m Esso JFT Upper Fuel Storage 350m Topaz (Fareplay Yard 1) Upper Fuel Storage 450m Topaz Irish Shell (Yard 3) Lower Fuel Storage 600m Topaz Yard 1 Lower Fuel Storage 500m Topaz (Fareplay Yard 2) Upper Fuel Storage 550m Topaz Yard 2 Upper Fuel Storage 600m Indaver Upper Solvent Storage 800m Calor Gas Upper Gas Storage 850m

Baseline Air Quality

Air quality legislation in Ireland deals with air quality by means of "zones" based on population. For Ireland, four zones are defined and the main areas defined in each zone are:

• Zone A: Dublin Conurbation.

• Zone B: Cork Conurbation.

• Zone C: Other cities and large towns comprising Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Sligo, Drogheda, Wexford, Athlone, Ennis, Bray, Naas, Carlow, Tralee, Dundalk, Navan, Letterkenny, Celbridge, Newbridge, Mullingar, Balbriggan, Greystones, Leixlip and Portlaoise.

• Zone D: Rural Ireland, i.e. the remainder of the State excluding Zones A, B and C.

The proposed development is located in Dublin 1 in the jurisdiction of Dublin City Council. As such, the site lies within EPA Air Quality Zone A (Dublin Conurbation). The EPA air quality monitoring network for Zone A has been reviewed and suitable representative data is presented to identify the background air quality in the area of the proposed development.

A summary of the EPA monitoring carried out in Zone A (Dublin Conurbation) is presented in the following sections. The EPA monitoring network in Dublin, which includes the local authority networks, includes a number of city centre locations (e.g. Coleraine Street, Winetavern Street, etc.) as well as suburban stations (e.g. Rathmines, Blanchardstown, etc.). In 2011, there were twelve stations in the Dublin area tested for various pollutants and there is variation each year regarding the locations and pollutants monitored at these locations. Presented in this section are the annual averages of all stations in Zone A. The averages are considered representative of the wider Dublin area and the site of the proposed development.



Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is classed as both a primary and a secondary pollutant. As a primary pollutant NO2 is emitted from all combustion processes (such as a gas/oil fired boiler or a car engine). As a secondary pollutant NO2 is derived from atmospheric reactions of pollutants that are themselves, derived mainly from traffic sources. The results of the network for the last ten years are presented in Table 7.2.7.

The average results indicate compliance with the limits for the protection of human health (Table 7.2.3) for the past ten years.

This compliance level is to some extent a result of Ireland’s location in western Europe where there is a strong prevailing westerly wind, high rainfall levels and low sunshine levels that allows for the rapid dispersion of pollutants and generally good air quality. In addition, at EU level there is legislation driven improvements to vehicles in terms of both engine performance and fuel specification (known as the Auto Oil Program) which has also helped in the reduction in pollutants over the past ten years.

Finally, it is also observed that the annual NOx limit for the protection of ecosystems is breached each year monitored (2008-2011) in the Dublin area. It should be noted that this limit applies to nitrogen sensitive species and not the wider environment or the protection of human health.

At the site of the proposed development the ESB Generating plant is a significant source of NOx with 74 tonnes emitted in 2012. Also the road, rail and shipping infrastructure would be significant sources in the area.

Table 7.2.7 Results of NOx monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A

Year Annual Mean NO2 (μg/m3)

Annual # of NO2 Values Exceeding Hourly Limit for

Protection of Human Health >200μg/m3

Annual Mean NOx (μg/m3)

2002 29 4 - 2003 34 2 - 2004 28 0 - 2005 28 1 - 2006 28 0 - 2007 28 0 - 2008 25 1 51 2009 28 2 55 2010 26 0 46 2011 25 1 46 Limit 40

(Annual limit for protection of

human health)

18 (# of Samples not to

exceed per year)

30 (Annual limit for

protection of vegetation)



Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) may be emitted as a primary pollutant from road vehicle exhausts, which is the main source in urban areas. In rural areas, sources will include traffic, agricultural activities and natural processes such as sea salt aerosol. Also point sources such as combustion, i.e. domestic fires, industrial boilers etc. are primary sources of PM10. PM10 may also be formed as secondary pollutants from the condensation or reaction of chemical vapours in the atmosphere.

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) has similar effects on health as PM10, however, PM2.5 is a better indicator of anthropogenic (man-made) emissions. The results of the EPA network for the last ten years are presented in Table 7.2.8.

As with NOx, the PM10 and PM2.5 data for Zone A shows compliance with the human health limits presented in Table 7.2.3. All sites in the Dublin area have been in full compliance with the human health limits for the past ten years and show a slight gradual decrease in annual emissions which is due to the legislation driven improvements in fuel and engine technology.

At the site of the proposed development the road, rail and shipping infrastructure (in particular vehicles, plant or vessels fuelled on diesel or other heavier fuels) would be the principal sources of PM. Sea salt aerosol would also be significant at coastal areas such as this site. The ESB generating station would not be a significant source as particulate emissions from natural gas combustion are negligible.

Table 7.2.8 Results of PM10 monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A

Year Annual Mean PM10 (μg/m3)

Annual # of PM10 Values Exceeding 24

Hour Limit for Protection of Human

Health >50μg/m3

Annual Mean PM2.5 (μg/m3)

2002 23 17 - 2003 23 25 - 2004 18 9 - 2005 16 5 - 2006 18 9 - 2007 15 5 - 2008 15 5 16 2009 16 3 10 2010 16 4 11 2011 15 9 11 Limit 40

(Annual limit for protection of

human health)


exceed per year)

25 (Annual target value for the protection of

human health)



Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

The largest sources of SO2 emissions are as a primary pollutant from fossil fuel combustion at power plants and other industrial facilities. Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore, and the burning of high sulphur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships, and non-road equipment. SO2 is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system.

The levels in SO2 in Dublin over the past ten years are presented in Table 7.2.9. The levels are low and less than 20% of the limit for the protection of human health. These levels are decreasing annually and are low largely as a result of the ban on smoky coal under the Air Pollution Act, 1987 (Marketing, Sale and Distribution of Fuels) Regulations (1998-2011).

In addition, the sulphur content of fuels for road, non-road and marine fuels are heavily regulated through the following:

• SI 155 of 2011 - European Communities Act, 1972 (Environmental Specifications for Petrol, Diesel Fuels and Gas Oils for use by non-road mobile machinery, including inland waterway vessels, agricultural and forestry tractors, and recreational craft) Regulations 2011

• SI No.119 of 2008 - Sulphur Content of Heavy Fuel Oil, Gas Oil and Marine Fuels

• SI 156 of 2011 - European Communities Act 1972 (Sulphur Content of Heavy Fuel Oil, Gas Oil, and Marine Fuels) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

There are no major sources of SO2 associated with the existing site given the above restrictions on fuel specification and type. While there is a generating station adjacent to the site, this is powered by natural gas with low sulphur emissions (0.1 tonnes in total in 2012).

Table 7.2.9 Results of SO2 monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A

Year Annual Mean SO2 (μg/m3)

Annual # of SO2 Values Exceeding 24 Hour Limit for

Protection of Human Health >125μg/m3

Annual # of SO2 Values Exceeding 1 Hour Limit

for Protection of Human Health

>350μg/m3 2002 6.7 0 0 2003 7.4 0 0 2004 3.3 0 0 2005 3.2 0 0 2006 3.2 0 0 2007 2.5 0 0 2008 2.0 0 0 2009 2.7 0 0 2010 2.5 0 0 2011 2.4 0 0 Limit 20

(Annual limit for protection of vegetation)


exceed per year)


exceed per year)



Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds (i.e. organic fuels such as coal, oil, petrol, diesel, wood, etc) during the combustion process. CO forms when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2). As such, CO is a primary pollutant from all combustion process including vehicle exhausts, shipping exhausts, domestic heating, etc. The extent of CO emissions depends on the fuel type and the combustion conditions. Once inhaled. CO is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream from the lungs. Then it combines with haemoglobin in the blood to form carboxyhaemoglobin. This reduces the ability of the blood to carry oxygen around the body and it robs the heart, brain and other vital organs of oxygen.

Annual average levels of CO in Dublin are presented in Table 7.2.10. Recent levels are less than 40% of the limit value and show a gradual decrease annually. CO will be emitted by the natural gas generating station in Dublin Port as well as from the road/rail/shipping.

Table 7.2.10 Results of CO monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A

Year Annual Mean CO (mg/m3)

Annual # of CO Values Exceeding 8 Hour Limit for Protection of Human

Health >10mg/m3 2002 0.7 0 2003 0.4 0 2004 0.6 0 2005 0.6 0 2006 0.5 0 2007 0.3 0 2008 0.4 0 2009 0.3 0 2010 0.3 0 2011 0.3 0 Limit 10

(8-hour limit for protection of human

health)

0 (# of Samples not to exceed per year)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

VOCs such as benzene (a known human carcinogen) are emitted directly from petrol fuelled vehicles. Other VOCs are also emitted from petrol exhausts (toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes). VOCs have varying sources and properties and only benzene has a limit for the protection of human health in the legislation (Table 7.2.3).

The EPA monitor for benzene and other VOCs in Rathmines and these results are presented in Table 7.2.11. Benzene levels in Dublin are low and well below the limit for the protection of human health and have remained low for the last ten years. Levels of the other VOCs in Dublin have also remained stable in the last seven years but there is no limit for the protection of human health.



Existing sources of VOCs from the current operations at Dublin Port include road/rail and shipping traffic as well as fuel/solvent handling and storage from the adjoining Seveso sites as listed in Table 7.2.6.

Table 7.2.11 Results of VOC monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A

Year Annual Mean Benzene (µg/m3)

Annual Mean

Toluene (µg/m3)

Annual Mean Ethylbenzene

(µg/m3)

Annual Mean m/p-

Xylene (µg/m3)

Annual Mean o-Xylene (µg/m3)

2002 2.5 - - - - 2003 1.1 - - - - 2004 1.3 - - - - 2005 0.5 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 2006 2.7 6.5 0.8 2.6 0.7 2007 2.8 5.1 0.5 1.4 0.4 2008 0.9 6.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 2009 0.8 2.7 - 3.0 0.4 2010 0.8 2.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 2011 1.6 3.6 0.4 1.5 0.5 Limit 5

(Annual limit for protection

of human health)

NA NA NA NA

Heavy Metals

Like VOCs, different metals have different properties and sources in ambient air. Some of the more toxic metals include Arsenic and Cadmium (both known carcinogens), Nickel (“possible” carcinogen) and Lead and there are target values set for these metals in ambient air (Table 7.2.4). The EPA has monitored for Lead since 2002 and the other metals since 2008 and these results are presented in Table 7.2.12. The results show low levels of all metals well below the relevant limits for the protection of human health (Table 7.2.4).

At the existing port operations, the main source of metals in the atmosphere would be derived from the combustion of fuels in vessels during cruising, idling and manoeuvring. Other low level sources of metals in ambient air around Dublin Port would include low level emissions in diesel exhaust and brake and tyre wear from road traffic.



Table 7.2.12 Results of Heavy Metal monitoring carried out by the EPA in Zone A

Annual Mean (ng/m3) Year Lead Arsenic Cadmium Nickel 2002 32.5 - - - 2003 18.0 - - - 2004 18.0 - - - 2005 26.0 - - - 2006 10.0 - - - 2007 10.0 - - - 2008 10.0 1.1 0.05 2.02 2009 6.5 2.7 0.05 5.5 2010 11.2 2.9 1.0 3.5 2011 3.5 0.8 0.5 1.5 Limit 500

(Annual limit for protection

of human health)

6 (Annual limit for protection

of human health)

5 (Annual limit for

protection of human health)

20 (Annual limit for

protection of human health)

Baseline Climate

The weather in Ireland is influenced by the Atlantic Ocean, resulting in mild, moist weather dominated by maritime air masses. The prevailing wind direction is from a quadrant centred on west-southwest. These are relatively warm winds from the Atlantic and frequently bring rain. Easterly winds are weaker and less frequent and tend to bring cooler weather from the northeast in spring and warmer weather from the southeast in summer. The site of the proposed development on the east coast would experience a higher frequency of easterly winds than more inland locations or those on the west coast.

The nearest meteorological station to the area is the Met Éireann Station in Dublin Airport which lies approximately 9km north of the subject site. The 30-year averages from the station at Dublin Airport are presented in Table 7.2.13.

Table 7.2.13 30-year Average Meteorological Data from Dublin Airport (Annual Values from 1981-2010, source: www.met.ie)

Parameter 30-year Average Mean Temperature (0C)

9.8

Mean Relative Humidity at 0900UTC (%)

83.0

Mean Daily Sunshine Duration (hours)

3.9

Mean Annual Total Rainfall (mm)

758.0

Mean Wind Speed (knots)

10.3



The prevailing wind direction for the area is between west and southwest as presented in the windrose for Dublin Airport Met Station for 1942 to 2010 in Figure 7.2.1. Northerly winds tend to be very infrequent (less than 5%) with easterly winds marginally more frequently (5-10%). Wind characteristics are typically moderate with relatively infrequent gales (average only 8.2 days with gales per annum).

Figure 7.2.1 Windrose for the Dublin Airport Met Station 1942 to 2010 (source: www.met.ie)

7.2.3 Potential Impacts

Construction Stage

Construction Dusts

To simulate the potential dust emissions during the proposed construction stage, emissions have been modelled using a standard air dispersion modelling assessment as per the EPA Guidance Note AG4. It is important to note at the outset that one of the principle factors affecting dust generation and dust deposition relates to moisture content. Moisture increases the mass of a dust particle meaning particles are less friable and hence, less prone to dust dispersion. In most construction projects, the principal means of dust suppression is through maintaining a high moisture level on dust particles. In the case of the proposed works at Dublin Port, all dredged material will inherently have a high moisture content and hence a lower risk of dust impact.



The proposed construction phase is a presented in Chapter 4 of this EIS and includes details of the main tasks and durations. In summary, the following are the main activities with relevance to air quality and dust impact:

• Dredging of contaminated material from Alexandra Basin West and transport by barge to Berth 52/53;

• Dredging of sediments from the navigation channel which will be disposed of at sea under permit from the EPA;

• Treatment of the contaminated material from Alexandra Basin West at a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53;

• Reinstatement of treated material at Berth 52/53; and

• Reinstatement of treated material at Graving Dock #2.

The dredging operations are considered very low risk for dust impacts given that this material will have a very high moisture content (circa 50% by weight). This is also the case for the transport of this material. As such, these operations are considered to have negligible dust impacts and are not considered further in this assessment.

The treatment process (as described in Chapter 11 of this EIS) includes for some screening/separation and further dewatering. Following this pre-treatment the moisture content will remain high (circa 30% by weight) and the dust impact will remain low. This material will maintain this moisture content through the treatment and reinstatement phases so the dust risk is consistent through these periods.

Despite the low inherent risk, these operations have been modelled to assess the potential impacts of dusts (both hazardous and non-hazardous) on the surrounding environment. The following assumptions have been adopted for the model simulation:

• Infilling at Berth 52/53 and Graving Dock #2 will occur simultaneously with the treatment process.

• The treatment area is modelled as two principal sources including a screening/separation area as well as an area of 50x100m for sediment handling.

• The contaminant content (i.e. heavy metals) in the dredged material under treatment is based on that determined from sediment quality sampling and analysis surveys of the dredged material in Alexandra Basin West.

• A general dust level from the ongoing construction operations has been assumed for the entire subject area.

• No potentially dusty material will be removed from the site by road. Only debris such as scrap metal, etc. will be removed in this period.

• The modelling has assumed that the above operations will be carried out in a controlled manner employing the mitigation measures presented in Section 7.2.4.

This operation has been simulated using the dispersion model and that AP-42 emission factors to assess the impact on sensitive receptors in the area. Table 7.2.14 presents the results of the modelling of maximum 1-hour impact and Table 7.2.15 presents the results of the modelling of annual average impact.



The results in Table 7.2.14 indicate that all maximum 1-hour levels are within the relevant limits and guidelines for the protection of human health, where available. The results indicate that the greatest short term (1-hour) impacts will be to the north (R4 and R5) along the Clontarf Road when compared to the other receptors to the south (R1 to R3).

The results in Table 7.2.15 present the annual average concentrations at the receptors for each of the pollutants. The annual results include the existing background concentrations for Zone A taken from the 2011 baseline data. All results show compliance with the statutory limits and guidelines for the protection of human health. The results show only a marginal increase on the existing background levels in the area. As with the 1-hour averages, the annual averages show that the greatest impact will be to the north along Clontarf Road which is consistent with the prevailing wind.

In summary, the model indicates that the operation of the dredge spoil treatment facility, coupled with infilling and general site construction will not have an adverse impact on sensitive receptors in the area around Dublin Port. All concentrations of dust and metals will remain within the relevant limits and guidelines for the protection of human health.

Table 7.2.14 Impact Assessment for Short Term Exposure (Maximum 1-hour averages)

Pollutant Receptor R1 Receptor R2 Receptor R3 Receptor R4 Receptor R5 Short Term

Limit/Guideline TSP (μg/m3)

1.87894 2.03941 4.33301 5.78352 6.94251 -

PM10 (μg/m3) 0.207059 0.224743 0.477498 0.637344 0.765065 50 (as 24 hour)

PM2.5 (μg/m3)

0.042840 0.046499 0.098793 0.131864 0.158289 -

Aluminium

(ng/m3) 102.5484 111.3065 236.4861 315.6517 378.9068 -

Arsenic

(ng/m3) 0.0256 0.0278 0.0591 0.0789 0.0947 -

Cadmium (ng/m3) 0.0013 0.0015 0.0031 0.0042 0.0050 -

Chromium (ng/m3) 0.2536 0.2753 0.5849 0.7807 0.9372 150,000

Copper

(ng/m3) 0.0998 0.1083 0.2301 0.3071 0.3686 200,000

Lead (ng/m3) 0.0970 0.1053 0.2238 0.2987 0.3585 -

Lithium

(ng/m3) 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 -

Mercury

(ng/m3) 0.1098 0.1192 0.2533 0.3380 0.4058 7,500

Nickel

(ng/m3) 0.3451 0.3746 0.7959 1.0623 1.2752 -

Zinc (ng/m3) 1.87894 2.03941 4.33301 5.78352 6.94251 1,000,000



Table 7.2.15 Impact Assessment for Long Term Exposure (annual averages including background)

Pollutant Receptor R1 Receptor R2 Receptor R3 Receptor R4 Receptor R5 Limit/Guideline

TSP (μg/m3) 30.00236 30.00278 30.0028 30.01836 30.02888 150

PM10 (μg/m3) 15.00026 15.00030636 15.00031 15.00202 15.00318 40

PM2.5 (μg/m3) 11.00005 11.00006338 11.00006 11.00042 11.00066 25

Aluminium

(ng/m3) 0.303976 0.358073884 0.36065 2.364833 3.719847 -

Arsenic

(ng/m3) 0.800032 0.800037935 0.800038 0.800251 0.800394 6

Cadmium

(ng/m3) 0.500002 0.500001995 0.500002 0.500013 0.500021 5

Chromium

(ng/m3) 0.000752 0.000885635 0.000892 0.005849 0.0092 5,000

Lead (ng/m3) 3.500125 3.500147618 3.500149 3.500975 3.501534 10,000

Lithium

(ng/m3) 0.000288 0.000338829 0.000341 0.002238 0.00352 500

Mercury

(ng/m3) 5.21E-07 6.13845E-07 6.18E-07 4.05E-06 6.38E-06 -

Nickel (ng/m3) 1.500138 1.500162488 1.500164 1.501073 1.501688 250

Zinc (ng/m3) 0.001023 0.001205073 0.001214 0.007959 0.012519 20

TSP (μg/m3) 30.00236 30.00278 30.0028 30.01836 30.02888 50,000 (as

ZnO)

Greenhouse Gases

Emissions with the potential to cause climate change will arise from embodied carbon dioxide in site materials as well as vehicles delivering this material to the construction site. These emissions have been quantified using the Environment Agency carbon calculator for construction sites and the results are presented in Table 7.2.16.

Table 7.2.16 Summary of Greenhouse Emissions from Construction (Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent).

Item Estimated GHG Emissions (tCO2eq) Imported Material (embodied and transport)

11,183

Waste Removal (including dredging)

239,584

Material Transport

2,326

Personnel Transport

770

Total estimated GHG Emissions

253,863

The results indicate that the main emissions of greenhouse gas are from the removal of material from the area (including dredging by sea and other materials by road). The total



estimated greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed construction is calculated at 253,863 tonnes of CO2eq.

Odour

There is a relatively low potential for odour generation and nuisance to occur during the construction phase. The potential exists where decayed organic material has the potential to release sulphurous compounds (such as H2S) or where solvent contamination is uncovered. Both of these potential sources will be released under water during the dredging operations.

Low levels or organic solvents are predicted in the dredged material and any vapour released will quickly condense into the liquid phase and either dissolve in the water (such as water soluble solvents such as alcohols) or form a residue on the water surface where not water soluble (such as aromatics). In both cases the impact is considered negligible.

Operation Phase

Road Traffic

Road traffic can impact on local air quality and any sensitive receptors that located adjacent to the local road network may experience the impacts to local air quality. Traffic on the road network is predicted to increase during the operation stage in line with the increased throughput of cargo as predicted under the Statement of Need (see Chapter 1). In addition, the proposed closure of existing accesses to the Alexandra Basin West may also affect traffic movements.

Given the main traffic routes on the existing network and the locations of residential areas along these routes, the following links have been assessed using the DMRB:

• R1: Residential Properties along Pigeon House Road

• R2: Residential Properties along East Wall Road (west of the junction with the Port Tunnel)

• R3: Residential Properties along North Wall Quay

The results of the modelling for the worst case receptor at 10m from each road centreline are presented in Tables 7.2.17 to 7.2.19 for a range of scenario years.



Table 7.2.17 Local impact of operational traffic on Pigeon House Road

Scenarios Nitrogen Dioxide (μg/m3)

Particulates (PM10) (μg/m3)

Annual Average

NO2

Annual Average PM10 Days > 50μg/m3

Background 25 15 9

2013 29.71 16.64 0.56

2018 28.99 16.38 0.45

2023 28.88 16.38 0.45

2040 29.08 16.47 0.48

Limits 40 40 35

Table 7.2.18 Local impact of operational traffic on East Wall Road



Annual Average NO2


Background 25 15 9

2013 28.73 16.27 0.41

2018 28.23 16.10 0.35

2023 28.14 16.10 0.35

2040 28.31 16.17 0.37

Limits 40 40 35



Table 7.2.19 Local impact of operational traffic on North Wall Quay



Annual Average NO2


Background 25 15 9

2013 28.44 16.17 0.37

2018 28.01 16.02 0.32

2023 28.03 16.06 0.33

2040 28.18 16.12 0.35

Limits 40 40 35

The results indicate that all levels of pollutants are predicted to remain within the limits for the protection of human health along each of these routes even with the full predicted growth in traffic by 2040. In summary, local air quality impacts to receptors along these routes from operational traffic will not be significant.

Shipping Emissions

Shipping volume to the port are predicted to increase annually during the period 2013 to 2040 and this increase in shipping numbers will have a resultant increase in shipping emissions.

EU Directives are in force which relate to the content of sulphur in marine gas oil (EU Directive 93/12 and EU Directive 1999/32) and the content of sulphur in heavy fuel oil used in SECA (EU-Directive 2005/33).

The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO has approved amendments to Marpol Annex VI in October 2008 in order to strengthen the emission standards for NOx and the sulphur contents of heavy fuel oil used by ship engines.

The current Marpol 73/78 Annex VI legislation on NOx emissions, formulated by IMO (International Maritime Organisation) is relevant for diesel engines with a power output higher than 130 kW, which are installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 2000 and diesel engines with a power output higher than 130 kW which undergo major conversion on or after 1 January 2000.

The Marpol Annex VI, as amended by IMO in October 2008, considers a three tiered approach as follows:

• Tier I: diesel engines (> 130 kW) installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 2000 and prior to 1 January 2011;



• Tier II: diesel engines (> 130 kW) installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 2011;

• Tier III (1): diesel engines (> 130 kW) installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 2016.

Given the existing legal requirements around fuel and emissions for shipping, the extent of emissions are gradually reducing and will continue to reduce in future years. The total emissions of all ships currently using the port is presented in Table 7.2.20 based on existing types and numbers of vessels and the emission factors from the EMEP/EEA Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013.

Table 7.2.20 Total Shipping Emissions 2013 (Baseline)

Vessel Type 2013 Ships per annum

Total NOx per annum

(tonnes)

Total VOCs per annum

(tonnes) Total TSP per

annum (tonnes)

Ro-Ro 4,928 1,999 68 156

Lo-Lo 1,101 447 15 35


Bulk Solid 338 423 14 33


Cruise 87 81 3 6

Other 118 64 2 5

Total 7,055 3,563 121 279

Using a similar approach, the projected vessel number for 2040 has been used to determine the increase in emissions of these pollutants from the increased vessel numbers. The results of this assessment are presented in Table 7.2.21. The number of vessels is predicted to increase by 71% from 2013 to 2040 and there is a subsequent 60% increase in annual emissions of NOx, VOCs and particulates. This increase is considered conservative as it does not factor in the Tier III emissions reductions or any other legislation implemented before 2040.



Table 7.2.21 Total Shipping Emissions 2040 Projections

Vessel Type

2040 Ships per annum

Total NOx per annum

(tonnes)

Total VOCs per annum

(tonnes)

Total TSP per annum (tonnes)

Ro-Ro 9,696 3,932 134 307

Lo-Lo 1,066 432 15 34


Bulk Solid 464 580 20 45


Cruise 160 148 5 12

Other 200 108 4 8

Total 12,039 5,713 195 447

The predicted increase is NOx is circa 2,150 tonnes per annum by 2040. This is approximately 3% of the 2010 NOx emissions ceiling of 65 kilotonnes. The VOC increase is approximately 0.1% of the 2010 emissions ceiling.


Construction Phase - Dust

In order to mitigate construction dust emissions during the construction phase, a dust minimisation plan will be prepared as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The dust minimisation plan will be based upon the industry guidelines in the Building Research Establishment document entitled ‘Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities’. The potential for dust to be emitted depends on the type of construction activity being carried out in conjunction with environmental factors including levels of rainfall, wind speeds and wind direction. The potential for impact from dust depends on the distance to potentially sensitive locations and whether the wind can carry the dust to these locations. The implementation of a dust minimisation plan during the construction phase of the project will include measures such as:

• Site roads shall be regularly cleaned and maintained as appropriate. Hard surface roads shall be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any un-surfaced roads shall be restricted to essential site traffic only;

• Any site roads with the potential to give rise to dust will be regularly watered, as appropriate, during dry and/or windy conditions (also applies to vehicles delivering material with dust potential);

• All vehicles exiting the site shall make use of a wheel wash facility prior to entering onto public roads, to ensure mud and other wastes are not tracked onto public roads. Wheel washes should be self-contained systems that do not require discharge of the wastewater to water bodies;



• Public roads outside the site shall be regularly inspected for cleanliness, and cleaned as necessary;

• Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials shall be designed and laid out to minimise exposure to wind;

• Water misting or sprays shall be used as required if particularly dusty activities are necessary during dry or windy periods;

• All vehicles which present a risk of spillage of materials, while either delivering or removing materials, will be loaded in such a way as to prevent spillage on to the public road;

• The contractor will be required to ensure that all vehicles are suitably maintained to ensure that emissions of engine generated pollutants is kept to a minimum; and

• The construction Contractor will be required to monitor monthly dust deposition levels each month for the duration of construction for comparison with the guideline of 350mg/m2/day (for non-hazardous dusts). This monitoring should be carried out at a minimum of four locations at sensitive receptors around the proposed works. Where dust levels are measured to be above this guideline the mitigation measures in the area must be reviewed as part of the dust minimisation plan.

In order to ensure that any dust nuisance is minimised, a series of mitigation measures have been listed. If the construction contractor adheres to good working practices and dust mitigation measures the levels of dust generated are assessed to be minimal and are unlikely to cause an environmental nuisance.

Construction Phase - Odour

In addition to construction dusts the CEMP will also include an odour management plan (OMP) to mitigate the potential for odours from dredging operations. The OMP will follow the guidance presented in the Environment Agency of England and Wales “Odour Management Guidance” (H4 Guidance, 2011). The odour monitoring and investigation aspects of the OMP will follow the EPA “Odour Impact Assessment Guidance for EPA Licensed Sites” (Guidance Note AG5, 2010). The OMP will be designed to:-

• Employ appropriate methods, including monitoring and contingencies, to control and minimise odour pollution;

• Prevent unacceptable odour pollution at all times; and

• Reduce the risk of odour releasing incidents or accidents by anticipating them and planning accordingly.

The plan will consider sources, releases and impacts of odour and use these to identify opportunities for odour management. The OMP will also include for the periodic odour audit of the facility by a suitably qualified expert to identify all sources on site together with nature and scale of the odour release and associated construction details. In addition, the plan should



include for complaint recording and investigation to ensure that all complaints received at the site are suitably addressed.

Construction Phase Greenhouse Gases

Mitigation measures to minimise CO2 emissions from transport include the following:-

• Implementation of a Traffic Management Plan which will be prepared in advance of the construction works and which will form part of the specification for the construction works. This will outline measures to minimise congestion and queuing, reduce distances of deliveries and eliminate unnecessary loads;

• Reducing the idle times by providing an efficient material handling plan that minimises the waiting time for loads and unloads. Reducing idle times could save up to 10% of total emissions during construction phase;

• Turning off vehicular engines when not in use for more than five minutes. This restriction will be enforced strictly unless the idle function is necessary for security or functionality reasons; and

• Regular maintenance of plant and equipment. Technical inspection of vehicles to ensure they will perform the most efficiently.

Materials with a reduced environmental impact may also be incorporated into the construction design through re-use of materials or incorporation of recycled materials in place of conventional building materials. The following materials should be considered for the construction phase:-

• Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) & Pulverised Fuel Ash - Used as replacements for Portland cements to increase sustainability and carbon footprint of civil and structural works; and

• Steel - The recovery rates associated with using recycled steel are high and research exists which shows that 99% of structural steel arising from demolition sites is recycled or re-used. The carbon emissions emitted during the production of virgin steel can be higher than some other structural materials on a tonne by tonne basis, and recycled steel should be used where possible.

As part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan, the Contractor will be required to implement an Energy Management System for the duration of the works. This Energy Management system may include such measures as:-

• The use of thermostatic controls on all space heating systems in site buildings to maintain optimum comfort at minimum energy use;

• The use of sensors on light fittings in all site buildings and low energy lighting systems;

• The use of adequately insulated temporary building structures for the construction compound fitted with suitable vents;



• The use of low energy equipment and “power saving” functions on all PCs and monitors in the site offices;

• The use of low flow showers and tap fittings; and

• The use of solar/thermal power to heat water for the on-site welfare facilities and contamination unit (sinks and showers).

Operational Phase – Road Traffic

The collection of EU Directives, known as the Auto Oil Programme, have outlined improved emission criteria which manufacturers are required to achieve from vehicles produced in the past and in future years. This is a trend which has been in operation for many years and is destined to continue in future years for both cars and heavy duty vehicles. The introduction of the National Car Test (NCT) has also helped to reduce transport emissions by ensuring that all vehicles on Irish roads over four years old undergo an emissions test.

As outlined in the prediction model findings, when the development becomes operational, compliance with all the relevant limit values will be achieved at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore no specific mitigation measures have been identified as a result of this assessment for the operational phase.

Operation Phase – Shipping Emissions

As outlined in Section 7.2.3, a number of EU Directives and the requirements of the Marpol Convention regulate the fuels and emissions employed in the shipping industry. These requirements will remain in practice throughout the operation of the proposed development and may be replaced with more stringent emission limits. No project specific mitigation is proposed for this project.


With the proposed mitigation in place there are no predicted residual impacts.



8. MATERIAL ASSETS

This chapter of the EIS describes the impact of the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project in terms of Transportation and Services.

8.1 TRANSPORTATION

Introduction

The following sections present the Transport Assessment (TA) for the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project in Dublin Port.

The ABR Project is a major infrastructure development project brought forward for planning from Dublin Port Company's (DPC) Masterplan 2012 to 2040.

The ABR Project will assist in achieving the objectives of the Masterplan, that is to cater for 60m gross tonnes of cargo by 2040, which equates to a growth of 2.5% per annum from 2012 to 2040.

The ABR Project focuses on a combination of re-developing existing (and in some cases life-expired) infrastructure and using existing port lands at higher utilisation levels.

The ABR Project will assist in achieving the objectives of the Masterplan by:

Dredging Alexandra Basin West and the Port's navigation channel to facilitate larger vessels;

Redeveloping berths as multipurpose berths to facilitate larger vessels of different types;

Relocating existing Ro-Ro Ramps and Increasing the number of Ro - Ro ramps to provide flexibility and increased utilisation;

The ABR Project consists of the following:

Removal of two Ro-Ro berths at the Berth 52/53 Basin and the provision of a new river berth, Berth 52;

Reconfiguration of berths within Alexandra Basin West and on North Wall Quay Extension including the provision of three new Ro-Ro Ramps;

Quay wall improvements to facilitate dredging and the provision of deepwater multipurpose berths along the North Wall Quay Extension.

A site location indicating the location of the ABR Project in relation to the wider Dublin Port lands is indicated in Figure 8.1.1.



Figure 8.1.1 Site Location Plan (Location of ABR Project in relation to Dublin Port)



The ABR Project will also result in the closure of two existing accesses to the port and therefore an associated re-distribution of existing traffic within the port will occur. The two accesses are:

Terminal 3 Access (left in / left out) on East Wall Road; and

Alexandra Road Access on East Wall Road to all operational traffic with the exception of access to DPC’s Head Office (Port Centre).

These changes will have the effect of directing Port traffic wishing to use the Dublin Port Tunnel, through the Dublin Port Estate, directly to the Dublin Port Tunnel without using East Wall Road.

The ABR Project will contribute to the Port being able to cater for future growth as cargo volumes increase at the envisaged rate of 2.5% per annum.

The ABR Project will also assist with the objectives of the Masterplan in improving the facilities for Cruise Liners and passengers by bringing the Cruise Liners to new multipurpose berths closer to the city.

This TA considers the impact of the ABR Project in line with the objectives of DPC's Masterplan. The TA assesses the impact of the predicted 2.5% growth per annum between 2012 and 2040 upon the surrounding highway network taking due consideration of the changes to the Port access arrangements as discussed above.

Whilst preparing this TA the following documents have been considered:

Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines,National Roads Authority (NRA) September 2007;

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments, Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) May 1994;

NRA Circulars / Policy Statements;

Traffic Management Guidelines, Department of Transport / Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government / Dublin Transportation Office (2003).

Table 8.1.1 provides a summary of the benefits of the ABR Project in relation to Traffic and Transportation.



Table 8.1.1 Summary of the Benefits of the ABR Project (Traffic and Transportation)

Transport Related ABR Project Proposals Transport Related Benefits

The ABR Project facilitates the relocation of cruise ships to a position closer to the City Centre at berths on North Wall Quay Extension.

Consistent with Dublin City Council objectives for cruise ship locations.

Accommodates better connectivity to City Centre and to the existing Luas halt at The Point.

The ABR Project closes the existing access at the East Wall Road / North Wall Quay Roundabout to vehicles. This route will be dedicated to pedestrian and cycle access and will facilitate Port staff and foot passengers from cruise ships.

Provides sustainable transport enhancement.

Consistent with increasing cruise ship passenger connectivity to the City Centre in accordance with the following policies / objectives;

• Dublin Docklands Master Plan 2008 Policy T36 relates to the provision of cruise ship facilities;

• Dublin City Development Plan 2011 - 2017Objective RE016 relates to a review of the cruise ship disembarking point with a view to increased connectivity with the City Centre, as facilitated by the ABR Project;

• Local Action Plan City of Dublin July 2011 - this refers to the relocation of the Cruise Liner berths to the North Quay Wall Extension and addresses the increased connectivity to the City Centre and the improved public realm possibilities. The ABR Project facilities the delivery of these objectives.

Improves the connection between the Port and the existing Luas halt at The Point.

The ABR Project includes access consolidation that closes the existing accesses to Dublin Port along East Wall Road and channels strategic HGV traffic to the Port Tunnel. The access closures are as follows:

• Alexandra Road closed to all traffic with the exception of Port Centre;

• Terminal 3 Access closed to all vehicles.

This has the result of removing a significant volume of traffic from East Wall Road along the frontage with The Point Village area and removes significant u-turning HGV movements from the existing roundabout at the East Wall Road / North Wall Quay junction.

Improves road capacity for non-strategic vehicles:

• Reduces HGV volumes on localised roads, increasing safety;

• Improving the localised environment for foot and cycle users;

• Reducing localised noise and air impacts.

Removing significant u-turners facilitating the DCC proposal to signalise the roundabout. Signalisation will improve safety, improve pedestrian / cycle crossing and provides DCC with better control of the network.

The ABR Project will provide a strip (varying in width between 6.45m and 4.045m) along the western boundary with East Wall Road to facilitate the DCC's proposal to 'soften' the existing boundary.

Improves public realm space.

Facilitates possible future sustainable transport enhancement.

The ABR Project is consistent with the objective of delivering the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) in the medium to long term and facilitates a potential alignment along the western boundary of the Port.

Supports the Principle of the DEB and does not compromise its future delivery and operation.



8.2 BACKGROUND

Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012 - 2040

The Masterplan was produced to provide all of the Port's stakeholders with a clear view as to how the Port will be developed over the long-term. The Masterplan was formally adopted by the Board of DPC on 26th January 2012.

Chapter 7 of the Masterplan discusses 'Transport and Inland Connectivity', the main points discussed in this chapter are as follows:

A Connected Port:

To focus on how Dublin Port connects with inland transport networks outside of the Port Estate; and

To examine travel within the Dublin Port Estate to ensure that more sustainable modes of transport are facilitated and encouraged over the Masterplan period.

Inland Connectivity - Road:

Dublin Port is well connected to the national road network and in particular the Dublin Port Tunnel, which opened in 2006 providing fast and direct access to the strategically important M50 and M1 routes within minutes of leaving the Port. The Dublin Port Tunnel has also assisted in removing congestion within the Dublin Port Estate and in the environs of the Port;

DPC has invested significantly in improvements to the internal road network of the Port to facilitate the efficient movements of goods to and from the various terminals and facilities in the Port. These internal improvements have been delivered to ensure that the investment in the Dublin Port Tunnel and the expansion of the capacity of the M50 are adequately utilised by freight traffic to and from the Port. The Dublin Port Tunnel and expansion of the capacity of the M50 and the implementation of the Dublin City Council HGV Management Strategy have assisted in reducing the times involved in moving goods to and from the Port.

Inland Connectivity - Rail:

Dublin Port is at the heart of the national rail network with direct connections to all major centres of population. DPC has maintained and developed the main rail infrastructure within the Port and is committed to the provision of rail connections and sidings within the Port. The level of freight that is transported by rail remains comparatively low but DPC believe that there is a significant potential for rail freight to grow over the period of the Masterplan.

Transport Policy & the Masterplan

In developing the Masterplan DPC has taken account of policy developments which will guide and influence how transport infrastructure is provided within the Port and for onward connectivity;



The EU White Paper (Roadmap to a single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system) which was adopted in March 2011 sets a clear policy context and challenges for Dublin Port. The White Paper seeks a reduction of 60% in Greenhouse Gases from the transport sector by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). To pursue this objective the White Paper sets some specific goals including;

− Reducing CO2 emissions from maritime bunker fuels by 2050;

− Moving 30% of road freight travelling in excess of 300km to other modes including rail and waterborne travel;

− Ensuring all core seaports are connected to the rail freight and inland waterway system by 2050.

The Irish Government’s Smarter Travel Policy sets out a vision for sustainability in transport centred around five key goals:

− Reducing travel demand

− Maximising the efficiency of the transport network

− Reducing reliance on fossil fuels

− Reducing transport emissions

− Improving accessibility to Transport.

The Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy 2011 - 2030 deals with land transport and outlines a hierarchy of transport users with 84 direct measures to assist in achieving the objectives set out under the strategy, including 21 measures specifically dealing with roads, freight and demand management. To meet the requirements of the Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy Dublin Port Company, through the Masterplan period, will seek to:

− Implement initiatives which support pedestrians and cyclists within and in the vicinity of the Port for both recreational and access purposes;

− Support better public transport links within the Port;

− Where achievable, to facilitate initiatives throughout the supply chain which these policies seek to implement.

DPC is confident of achieving these objectives through a targeted Travel Plan to address the movements within the Port and by specific measures designed to facilitate a better modal split in favour of rail transport for goods movement and the development of Portcentric logistics.

Dublin Port Masterplan - Strategic Environmental Assessment

The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report has been prepared in support of the DPC Masterplan 2012 - 2040 and should be read in conjunction with this document.



Chapter 17 of the SEA considers Transport and the main points of this chapter are outlined below:

Table 17.1 of the SEA (recreated in Figure 8.2.1) outlines the SEA Objectives and decision-making for transport which have been utilised to develop the baseline and guide the assessment process.

Figure 8.2 1 Transport objectives from Dublin Port Masterplan - SEA

The SEA considers that the construction of new developments within the Port estate (as part of the Masterplan) will have a minor short-term adverse effect on the transport network.

2013 National Ports Policy

The 2013 National Ports Policy document discusses the DPC Masterplan in two extracts as detailed below;

Paragraph 2.5.1

DPC is State's largest port company;

Handles approximately 43% of all seaborne trade in the State;

The port's importance is even more pronounced in the higher-value unitised (Lo-Lo and Ro-Ro) sectors, where it handles 70% of all Lo-Lo and 85% of all Ro-Ro;

Dublin Port Masterplan published in February 2012 setting out vision of development over the next 30 years. The plan represents a comprehensive framework for the long-term development of the port and is underpinned by three core principles;

− Maximisation of usage of existing port lands;

− Reintegration of the port within the city;

− Development of the port to the highest environmental standards.

The Government endorses the core principles underpinning the company's Masterplan, and the continued commercial development of DPC is a key strategic objective of National Ports Policy.



Paragraph 4.3

Port Master-planning is in line with international best practice generally and it is consistent with policy to improve integrated planning for all modes of transport. National Ports Policy recognises strongly the desirability of this process for the long-term planning of all Ports of National Significance (Tier 1 and 2). Dublin, Cork, Shannon Foynes and Rosslare have each completed or are in the process of completing masterplans.

Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines

The Traffic and Transport Assessment (TTA) Guidelines (September 2007) are published by the National Roads Authority. The purpose of the guidelines is to set down best practice guidance for the preparation of Traffic and Transport Assessment and to explain the relevant of TTA in the planning process.

Chapter 2 (paragraph 2.1) of the Guidelines sets out in Table 2.1 the thresholds for Traffic and Transport Assessment. Table 2.1 of the guidelines is recreated in Figure 8.2.2.

Figure 8.2.2 Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines - Thresholds for Transport Assessments

Table 2.2 of the Guidelines provides 'Advisory Threshold for Traffic and Transport Assessment Where National Roads are Affected'. Table 2.2 of the guidelines is recreated in Figure 8.2.3.



Figure 8.2.3 Advisory Thresholds for Traffic and Transport Assessment where National Roads are affected

Table 2.3 of the Guidelines provides Sub-threshold Criteria for Traffic and Transport Assessment. Table 2.3 of the guidelines is recreated in Figure 8.2.4.

It is considered appropriate that the 10% threshold will apply to the ABR Project. None of the other development categories apply.



Figure 8.2.4 Sub-threshold Criteria for Traffic and Transport Assessment

The Guidelines indicate that the proposed development would need to meet two or more of the criteria in Table 2.3 before a TTA should be requested. This will be considered in Section 8.6 Impact of Proposal on Road Network.

8.2.1 Transport Related Policies and Objectives being delivered by the ABR Project

The ABR Project will contribute towards delivering transportation related policies and objectives. These include provision for public realm areas, provision for public transport enhancement and relocation of cruise ships to berths with better connectivity to the City Centre;

Table 8.1.1 above summarise the benefits of the ABR Project in transportation terms. The policy review that follows will demonstrate that these benefits conform to the policies and objectives contained in current policy documents.

Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008

The Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008 was released by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.

The following polices have been extracted from the report.



The document contains other policies for which the ABR Project facilitates delivery. Policy T36 relates to provision of Cruise Liner facilities, and policies T11 and LU2 relate to community connectivity and environmental and social improvements through sustainable transport measures.

Dublin City Development Plan 2011 - 2017

The Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 is issued by the Dublin City Council and is high in the policy hierarchy.

Policy SC8 supports regeneration and connectivity to the City Centre.



Objective RE016 relates to a review of the cruise ship disembarking point with a view to improved connectively with the City Centre, as facilitated by the ABR Project.

Local Action Plan, City of Dublin July 2011

This Local Action Plan (LAP) report (Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration) was prepared by Dublin City Council (DCC) in conjunction with DPC and Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA).

The Objectives of the LAP are extracted below.

It refers to the relocation of the cruise ships to berths on North Wall Quay Extension and addresses the increased connectivity to the City Centre and the improved public realm possibilities as illustrated in the extracts below (Figure 4-4 of the Local Action Plan) recreated in Figure 8.2.5. As before, the ABR Project facilitates the delivery of the objectives in this document.



Figure 8.2.5 Extracts from the Local Action Plan, City of Dublin July 2011

8.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section discusses the existing conditions relating to pedestrian, cycling, public transport and private vehicles in the vicinity of the Port.

Figure 8.3.1 indicates the existing levels of pedestrian, cycling and public transport facilities in the vicinity of the Port.



Figure 8.3.1 Existing Transport Modes within the Vicinity of the Port



As indicated in Figure 8.3.1 Dublin Port has close connections to pedestrian, cycling and public transport facilities. Each mode of transport is discussed in greater detail below.

Pedestrian Facilities

Dublin Port is well served by pedestrian facilities with internal pedestrian routes connecting to the external network providing pedestrian connectivity to existing cycle routes, bus stops (both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann) and the Luas light rail system.

A number of controlled pedestrian crossing points are located on East Wall Road along the frontage of the site, ensuring safe crossing facilities for pedestrians. The pedestrian facilities on East Wall Road along the frontage of the site are shown in Plate 8.3.1 and controlled pedestrian crossing points at the East Wall Road / Alexandra Road junction are shown in Plate 8.3.2 (which also shows the level crossing for freight trains).

Plate 8.3.1 Pedestrian Facilities - East Wall Road



Plate 8.3.2 Pedestrian Facilities - Controlled Pedestrian Crossings

The information provided above indicates that existing pedestrian facilities within the vicinity of the proposed development are adequate to serve pedestrian demand from the adjacent ABR Project.

Cycling Facilities

Plate 8.3.1 above shows the existing cycling facilities on East Wall Road along the frontage of the site. These cycling facilities provide connectivity into the wider cycling network throughout Dublin as indicated in Figure 8.3.2.



Figure 8.3.2 Cycling Facilities - Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan

Dublinbikes has a number of stations located along North Wall Quay in close proximity to The Point and Dublin Port. The locations of these stations are included in Figure 8.3.3.

Figure 8.3.3 Public Transport Facilities – Dublinbike



The information identified above indicates that there are existing cycling facilities operational along the frontage of the site and there are numerous cycling facilities in the vicinity of the development site.

Public Transport Facilities

Figure 8.3.1 above indicates the existing public transport facilities in the vicinity of the development site and shows the close proximity of the Luas to Dublin Port.

There are both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann stops located within walking distance of Dublin Port (with controlled pedestrian crossings provided). The main source of public transport to / from the site is likely to be via the Luas light rail system which departs via The Point. The Luas map is shown in Figure 8.3.4.

Figure 8.3.4 Public Transport Facilities - Luas Light Rail System

The Point Luas halt is located on the 'Red Line' which provides access from The Point in Docklands to Connolly station, through the city centre and towards Belgard in the south west, where the line branches towards Tallaght and Saggart as indicated in Figure 8.3.5.



Figure 8.3.5 Public Transport Facilities - Luas System - Red Line

As indicated in Figure 8.3.5 above the Luas connects with Connolly Station, Heuston Station and Busáras. This provides the port with direct passenger access to mainline rail connections to all of Ireland’s cities (including cross border cities of Derry, Newry, Lisburn and Belfast). The bus connections provide an even wider geographical spread of towns across Ireland.

There is also a Luas 'Green Line' which runs from St. Stephen's Green (indicated in Figure 8.3.4) in the city centre to Bride's Glen in the south east of Dublin. The two lines are not currently joined. The closest points are between St. Stephens Green (Green Line) and Abbey Street (Red Line), a walk of about 15 minutes. However the Luas BXD project will link up the existing Luas lines and will provide Dublin with a fully integrated commuter rail network.



The Luas trams are built with accessibility in mind, each tram has low level access, two designated wheelchair spaces and four designated seats for passengers with mobility requirements. Therefore the Luas is an ideal public transport service connecting passengers to / from the port. Information on the Luas Red Line operating times, frequency and journey times are indicated in Figures 8.3.6 to 8.3.8.

Figure 8.3.6 Public Transport Facilities - Luas System - Red Line - Operating Times

Figure 8.3.7 Public Transport Facilities - Luas System - Red Line - Frequency



Figure 8.3.8 Public Transport Facilities - Luas System - Red Line - Journey Times

It is clear from the information above that Dublin Port is well served by existing pedestrian, cycling and public transport facilities.

Strategic Rail Network

The Dublin Port Masterplan shows that Dublin Port is at the heart of the national rail network with direct connections to all major centres of population. DPC has maintained and expanded rail infrastructure within the Port and is committed to the provision of rail connections and sidings within the Port. The level of freight that is transported by rail remains comparatively low but Dublin Port Company believes that there is significant potential for rail freight to grow over the period of the Masterplan.

There is a direct freight train service to and from the port as shown in Figure 8.3.9. This service is via a level crossing, operates across East Wall Road and along Alexandra Road. Alexandra Road road space is shared between vehicles and freight service trains.

Currently there are three trains per weekday bringing c. 400,000 tonne of lead and zinc ore concentrates from Tara Mines per annum and six container trains per week transporting in the region of 20,000 TEU per annum.



Figure 8.3.9 Existing Rail Spurs within Dublin Port



Vehicular Facilities

The location of Dublin Port and the surrounding highway network is indicated in Figure 8.1.1 above. There are currently three main approach roads serving Dublin Port. These are shown in Figure 8.3.10.

Figure 8.3.10 Existing Accesses to Dublin Port

There is a number of traffic signal controlled junctions along East Wall Road in the vicinity of the Port, as follows:

Dublin Port Tunnel / East Wall Road;

East Wall Road / Alexandra Road; and

East Wall Road / Sheriff Street Upper.



East Wall Road comprises three lanes from North Quay Wall, widening to four lanes at the approach to Sheriff Street Upper, six lanes from Sheriff Street Upper to Alexandra Road with an additional lane north of Alexandra Road.

Dublin Port Tunnel carries the majority of traffic to and from the Port. Dublin Port Tunnel links Dublin Port to the M50 via the M1.

The Dublin Port Tunnel was built to remove the significant numbers of HGV's travelling to and from Dublin Port via the City Centre. A letter from the National Roads Authority (NRA) to DPC dated 31st May 2011 and included in Appendix 8 highlights this by stating explicitly that the Dublin Port Tunnel has been provided by the NRA in conjunction with Dublin City Council in line with the Government Policy to improve access to and from Dublin Port by HGV's.

Dublin Port Tunnel has significant spare capacity to accommodate future growth within Dublin Port and the greater Dublin area. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 5 Section 1 Part 3 TA 79/99 Amendment No 1 - Table 2 would indicate that a Dual Carriageway with two lanes in each direction can carry 3,600 vehicles per hour in each direction, therefore a daily capacity of the Dublin Port Tunnel in each direction would be (3,600 x 24) = 86,400 vehicles and the two way flow on the Port Tunnel in a 24 hour period is 172,800 vehicles. Whilst TA 79/99 is not formally implemented by the NRA, the NRA do state that it should be considered as 'background reading' indicating good practice.

A recent survey carried out on 17th April 2013 indicated that the daily two way flow on the Dublin Port Tunnel was 17,361 equivalent to 10% of the tunnel’s theoretical capacity. This shows clearly that there is more than sufficient spare capacity in the Port Tunnel for future growth.

Proposed Improvements associated with the ABR Project

There are a number of proposals associated with the ABR Project that will facilitate the improvement of sustainability and public realm in the vicinity of the Dublin Port / East Wall Road. These improvements are identified in Figure 8.3.11.

The location of the proposed pedestrian / cycle access would provide closer linkage to Dublinbike stations on North Wall Quay. With cruise ships berthed closer to the City and the close proximity of the Dublinbike stations a change in modal split for cruise passengers / crew (from taxi to walking / cycle) could be realised.



Figure 8.3.11 Proposed Improvements associated with ABR Project



8.4 BASELINE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

RPS commissioned traffic surveys via Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) loops (for seven days) at strategic points along Dublin Port frontage in May / June and September 2013. RPS have also been provided with the supporting traffic survey information undertaken by Dublin Port in January 2008 (in support of the Dublin Gateway Project). Data available via the Dublin City Council website has also been utilised.

The location of the traffic survey information is indicated in Figure 8.4.1.

Figure 8.4.1 Location of Traffic Survey Information

As indicated in Figure 8.4.1 above the volume of traffic entering and exiting Dublin Port can be calculated from the following movements;

Movements 1.1 & 1.2 - Promenade Road



Movements 4.1 & 4.2 - Alexandra Road Movements 7.1 & 8.1 - Terminal 3 Access

Table 8.4.1 indicates the hourly directional volume of traffic for a current 'average day' at Dublin Port.

Table 8.4.1 Directional Volume of Traffic (Average Day*) - Accesses to Dublin Port (September 2013)

Time Promenade Road Alexandra Road Terminal 3 Two Way Total Trips (Vehicles)

Movement 1.1

Movement 1.2

Movement 4.1

Movement 4.2

Movement 7.1

Movement 8.1

0000 - 0100 174 69 14 13 2 2 274 0100 - 0200 38 57 7 11 1 1 116 0200 - 0300 41 19 7 5 1 4 77 0300 - 0400 28 23 6 16 1 3 77 0400 - 0500 57 48 9 66 6 4 191 0500 - 0600 154 141 28 130 17 69 539 0600 - 0700 669 398 63 208 42 75 1454 0700 - 0800 588 480 63 237 35 53 1457 0800 - 0900 431 291 60 167 29 24 1002 0900 - 1000 310 272 68 178 25 22 875 1000 - 1100 318 247 83 176 39 30 894 1100 - 1200 340 269 95 183 40 56 983 1200 - 1300 535 341 120 203 51 59 1309 1300 - 1400 510 418 115 197 66 58 1364 1400 - 1500 427 296 122 193 54 38 1129 1500 - 1600 421 281 126 221 40 30 1119 1600 - 1700 542 336 98 163 45 32 1216 1700 - 1800 891 396 104 114 44 34 1582 1800 - 1900 459 273 66 75 48 37 958 1900 - 2000 343 232 62 64 66 25 792 2000 - 2100 169 172 37 51 23 15 466 2100 - 2200 127 70 22 30 6 16 270 2200 - 2300 73 51 18 31 0 2 175 2300 - 0000 98 54 18 27 0 2 199 0700 - 1900 5771 3899 1119 2106 518 475 13887 0600 - 2200 7078 4772 1303 2458 653 605 16869 0600 - 0000 7249 4877 1338 2516 654 609 17243 0000 - 0000 7741 5235 1408 2757 683 693 18518

* - Average Day (Average of Monday - Friday surveyed data)

As indicated in Table 8.4.1 above Promenade Road is the dominant access to Dublin Port, carrying 70% of daily vehicles.

As indicated above RPS also commissioned traffic counts in May / June 2013 and has access to the 2008 traffic surveys undertaken for another application within Dublin Port. The daily traffic comparison for 2008, May / June 2013 and September 2013 are included within Table 8.4.2.



Table 8.4.2 Average Daily Traffic Flows Comparison - Accesses to Dublin Port

Survey Period Promenade Road

Alexandra Road Terminal 3 Total Trips

(Vehicles) January 2008 13107 3101 942 17150

May 2013 13224 3824 1174 18223 September 2013 12976 4165 1376 18518

Comparing 2008 – 2013, the data shows a consistent profile in terms of daily traffic entering and exiting the port. Calculated growth between 2008 and 2013 represents an insignificant impact upon the surrounding highway network during this period.

As a method of assessing external network traffic trends, a volume of traffic on the surrounding highway network can be calculated from the following movements (excludes Port Tunnel, North Quay Wall and the R131):

Movements 2.1 & 2.2 - East Wall Road; Movements 5.1 & 5.2 - East Wall Road (along frontage of Port); Movements 6.1 & 6.2 - Sheriff Street Upper.

Table 8.4.3 indicates the hourly two way volume of traffic for a current 'average day' on the external highway network.

Table 8.4.3 Two-Way Volume of Traffic (Average Day*) on External Highway Network (September 2013)

Time East Wall Road East Wall Road Sheriff Street Upper Two Way Total Trips (Vehicles) Movement

2.1 Movement

2.2 Movement

5.1 Movement

5.2 Movement

6.1 Movement

6.2

0000 - 0100 58 34 124 97 33 19 365 0100 - 0200 21 20 37 52 11 7 148 0200 - 0300 19 9 33 34 10 5 109 0300 - 0400 9 17 36 37 5 7 111 0400 - 0500 15 48 67 109 5 18 262 0500 - 0600 48 106 211 351 15 47 778 0600 - 0700 131 277 576 540 41 110 1676 0700 - 0800 298 783 1083 949 102 171 3387 0800 - 0900 396 829 1308 946 205 215 3899 0900 - 1000 355 596 1033 763 148 162 3058 1000 - 1100 359 342 951 734 110 129 2626 1100 - 1200 355 368 793 754 97 130 2498 1200 - 1300 418 369 846 816 115 143 2707 1300 - 1400 430 397 844 882 116 176 2845 1400 - 1500 431 340 794 870 109 180 2724 1500 - 1600 476 338 805 939 105 175 2837 1600 - 1700 783 380 889 1085 126 160 3424 1700 - 1800 938 344 1009 1107 184 182 3764 1800 - 1900 751 381 818 928 151 184 3214 1900 - 2000 447 331 674 702 157 181 2491 2000 - 2100 275 198 350 435 82 89 1428 2100 - 2200 196 126 260 374 49 52 1056



Time East Wall Road East Wall Road Sheriff Street Upper Two Way Total Trips (Vehicles)

Movement 2.1

Movement 2.2

Movement 5.1

Movement 5.2

Movement 6.1

Movement 6.2

2200 - 2300 163 116 192 265 111 66 913 2300 - 0000 157 110 151 219 128 65 830 0700 - 1900 5989 5469 11174 10774 1569 2008 36982 0600 - 2200 7037 6401 13033 12825 1897 2439 43632 0600 - 0000 7357 6627 13376 13309 2135 2569 45374 0000 - 0000 7527 6860 13884 13989 2215 2672 47148

Daily Traffic Flows (2013) are tabulated in Appendix 8-2.

Figure 8.4.2 indicates the hourly profile for the total internal trips (Table 8.4.1), the total external trips (Table 8.4.3) and the overall profile (Table 8.4.1 and Table 8.4.3 combined). This analysis allows the existing peak hour period for the surrounding highway network to be identified.

Figure 8.4.2 Existing Daily Traffic Flows (2013)- Hourly Profile (Average Day)

The existing peak hour period for Dublin Port and the surrounding highway network is 1700 - 1800 hours.

The information above provides the existing levels of traffic associated with Dublin Port and the surrounding highway network.



Traffic Growth

The NRA Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines identify 'traffic growth rate on the surrounding network' as one of the key elements in evaluation of the assessment. Traffic growth is identified within the guidelines as 'the normal expected growth in traffic over time'.

Unit 5.5 Link-Based Traffic Growth Forecasting of the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines published in January 2011 has been used to determine the normal expected traffic growth for Dublin City.

Table 5.5.1: National Traffic Growth Forecasts: Annual Growth Factors from the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines for Dublin City is recreated in Figure 8.4.3.

Figure 8.4.3 National Traffic Growth Forecasts: Annual Growth Factors

For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the growth rate to be applied to the surrounding highway network will be the average of the light vehicle (LV) and heavy vehicle (HV). Therefore assuming High Growth this will be as follows:

2006 - 2025 (1.011 + 1.014) / 2 = 1.0125 / year 2026 - 2040 (1.008 + 1.005) / 2 = 1.0065 / year

Assessment Years

The NRA Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines identify assessment years as the following:

Traffic Volumes for Opening Year Opening Year + 5 years Opening Year + 15 years

Based on the construction programme for the ABR Project it is anticipated that the majority of infrastructure works will be completed by 2019 (with the exception of two phases of dredging works).

Therefore in accordance with the guidelines and for the purposes of this assessment the opening year is considered as 2019, and the future years are 2024 (opening year + 5) and 2034 (opening year + 15). The assessment also considers 2040 as the closing year of the existing DPC Masterplan document. This is not a requirement but it is considered a useful test for the full Masterplan period.



Therefore the growth factors considered for the entire network (to ensure a worst case analysis) within this assessment are as follows (based on 2013 as baseline)

2013 - 2019 1.077 or 7.7% above baseline 2013 - 2024 1.146 or 14.6% above baseline 2013 - 2034 1.230 or 23.0% above baseline 2013 - 2040 1.279 or 27.9% above baseline

Predicted daily traffic flows for 2019, 2024, 2034 and 2040 are tabulated in Appendix 8-3.

Existing Route Statistics

In September 2011 DPC commissioned Atkins to undertake Origin - Destination surveys at Dublin Port. The survey was undertaken in October 2011 to identify the main arrival / departure routes for vehicles entering and exiting Dublin Port. The findings of the report are summarised in Table 8.4.4.

Table 8.4.4 Route Statistics - Dublin Port (Origin – Destination Survey, October 2011)

Actual Route from / to Port

Outbound % Inbound %

Dublin Port Tunnel 79% 83% East Wall Road / Alfie Byrne Road 5% 5% Sheriff Street / North Circular Road 2% 3% North Wall Quay 3% 3% Toll Bridge / Strand Road 6% 4% Toll Bridge / Irishtown 5% 2% Total 100% 100%

The information in Table 8.4.4 indicates that the Dublin Port Tunnel currently carries the majority of traffic to / from Dublin Port. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the route statistics detailed within Table 8.4.4 does not change for the duration of the Masterplan.

8.5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

As outlined in section 8.1, the ABR Project will assist in achieving the objectives of the Masterplan, that is to cater for 60m gross tonnes of cargo by 2040, which equates to a predicted growth of 2.5% per annum from 2012 to 2040.

For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that Port related traffic will grow by 2.5% per annum for the duration of the Masterplan.

The ABR Project will result in the closure of two existing accesses to the port and therefore an associated re-distribution of existing traffic within the port will occur, with the traffic redistributing to Promenade Road. The two accesses are:



Terminal 3 Access (left in / left out) on East Wall Road Alexandra Road to all operational traffic (with the exception of access to DPC Head

Offices.)

The redistribution of existing internal Port traffic is discussed in greater detail below.

Redistribution due to closure of Alexandra Road

The ABR Project will result in the closure of the Alexandra Road access to all operational traffic. For the purposes of this assessment it has been assumed that 10% of the existing two way flow on Alexandra Road is associated with DPC offices. The DPC car park accommodates approximately 100 spaces filling and emptying twice a day would equate to 400 total daily trips.

Currently vehicles can turn either left or right from East Wall Road onto Alexandra Road, but can only turn left from Alexandra Road to East Wall Road.

Based on the route statistics data presented in Table 8.4.4 the road closure will result in a reduction in traffic along East Wall Road. This is due to traffic which currently exits Alexandra Road (left turn only) en route to the Dublin Port Tunnel must first travelling along East Wall Road, taking a u-turn at North Wall Quay roundabout and then travelling back along East Wall Road to the tunnel. The road closure will also divert traffic arriving via the Dublin Port Tunnel straight to Promenade Road thereby avoiding East Wall Road.

The redistribution of traffic associated with the closure of Alexandra Road as part of the ABR Project is presented in Appendix 8-4.

This redistribution only affects the immediate road network and as such the main receptor road flows remain unchanged.

Redistribution due to closure of Terminal 3 access

The ABR Project will also result in the closure of the Terminal 3 access. Currently vehicles must turn left in / left out at the Terminal 3 access.

Again, based on the route statistics data presented in Table 8.4.4 the road closure will result in a reduction in traffic along East Wall Road. This is due to traffic which currently exits Terminal 3 (left turn only) en route to the Dublin Port Tunnel first travelling a short distance along East Wall Road, taking a u-turn at North Wall Quay roundabout and then travelling back along East Wall Road to the tunnel. The road closure will also divert traffic arriving via the Dublin Port Tunnel straight to Promenade Road thereby avoiding East Wall Road.

The redistribution of traffic associated with the closure of the Terminal 3 access as part of the ABR Project is presented in Appendix 8-5.



Total redistribution of existing traffic due to the ABR Project

The total redistribution of existing traffic associated with the closure of both Alexandra Road to all operational traffic and Terminal 3 access is presented in Appendix 8-6.



8.6 IMPACT OF PROPOSAL ON ROAD NETWORK

Impact of existing port traffic flows in future years

The impact of the existing port traffic, redistributed by the two proposed access closures, on the surrounding road network was assessed for the years 2019, 2024, 2034 and 2040 incorporating the predicted traffic growth rates on the surrounding road network.

The results are presented in Appendix 8-7. These flows do not yet include any increase in port traffic associated with the 2.5% per annum growth as indicated in the Masterplan.

The results of this assessment show that the closure of the existing Alexandra Road (to operational traffic) and Terminal 3 access will result in a significant reduction in daily traffic volumes along East Wall Road. This provides a benefit to the external network particularly along East Wall Road in all assessment years.

Impact of growth in port traffic flows in future years

The DPC Masterplan predicts a 2.5% increase per annum to achieve the goal of the Masterplan, that is to accommodate 60m gross tonnes by 2040. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the 2.5% increase in activity per annum will result in a 2.5% increase in traffic volumes per annum.

This ensures a robust analysis as it is likely that the amount of freight transported by rail will increase during the lifetime of the Masterplan and any increase in rail usage will help reduce the associated increase in vehicle trips.

Using the port traffic derived from the 2013 surveys, a 2.5% per annum growth factor was applied as outlined below:

2013 - 2019 (6 years) 1.1597 5.9%; 2013 - 2024 (11 years) 1.3121 31.2%; 2013 - 2034 (21 years) 1.6796 67.9%; 2013 - 2040 (27 years) 1.9478 94.7%.

The increase in port traffic flows are presented in Appendix 8-8. for the assessment years of 2019, 2024, 2034 and 2040.

The ABR Project will not in itself generate the total 2.5% per annum increase predicted in the Masterplan to 2040 but it will be a significant step in facilitating this growth.

The predicted impact of growth in port traffic flows in future years traffic flows are presented in Appendix 8-9 and Appendix 8-10. This represents the full growth of Dublin Port and as such represents the worst case scenario.

The results of the assessment show that the overall impact of the DPC Masterplan predictions of 2.5% growth per annum up to 2040 is less than 10% [proposed traffic as a percentage of base traffic] upon the surrounding highway network (with the exception of the Dublin Port Tunnel - which was constructed to accommodated traffic to / from Dublin Port) as identified



within Figure 8.2.3 above (Advisory Thresholds for Traffic and Transport Assessment Where National Roads are Affected).

Based on the opening year percentage impacts for the full Masterplan the 5% threshold level is not exceeded (and a betterment is achieved on East Wall Road along the frontage of the site) on any links on the surrounding highway network with the exception of the Dublin Port Tunnel.

Therefore in relation to Figures 8.2.3 & 8.2.4 above a full TTA is not required even when considering the 2040 scenario of the full Masterplan.

With the objectives of the Masterplan achieved there is an overall reduction in daily traffic along East Wall Road (due to the closures of Alexandra Road and Terminal 3 accesses). The impacts upon the other local routes including North Wall Quay, Pigeon House Road, Sheriff Street Upper and East Wall Road are marginal even by 2040 as indicated below:

Sheriff Street Upper 6.75% two-way impact East Link Toll Bridge 4.7% two-way impact

There is a predicted increase in traffic in the Dublin Port Tunnel. However, as identified earlier in this chapter the Dublin Port Tunnel has sufficient spare capacity to accommodate this predicted increase. The two-way predicted daily traffic flow at the Port Tunnel by 2040 is 36,351 vehicles which is circa (36,351 / 172,800) 21% of its theoretical capacity with the objectives of the Masterplan fully achieved.

Due to the closures of Alexandra Road and Terminal 3 accesses there will be an increase in traffic internally within the Dublin Port Estate, however, DPC has been working diligently over the years to improve the internal routes and links to accommodate the increase in port related activity.

There will be a significant reduction in the volume of traffic along the frontage of Dublin Port from East Wall Road to North Wall Quay due to the closure of Alexandra Road and Terminal 3 accesses as part of the ABR Project.

This reduction in daily traffic volume along this frontage should be considered as a significant planning gain as the closure of these accesses removes a significant portion of traffic which currently has to U-turn at North Wall Quay roundabout due to the permitted 'left turn only exit' at both Alexandra Road and Terminal 3 accesses.

There is significant Public Realm at The Point and reducing the volume of traffic at this location should be considered as a positive impact of the proposed development. This reduction in traffic volumes and the removal of U-turning traffic will also facilitate the softening of the boundary to Dublin Port and the potential signalisation of the East Wall Road / North Wall Quay roundabout into a T-junction (plans proposed by Dublin City Council). The signalisation of this junction would create controlled pedestrian crossings and improve pedestrian safety along a future pedestrian desire line (for cruise passengers). The ABR will not have any detrimental impact upon the draft SDZ Planning Scheme as the removal of vehicular traffic along the frontage of East Wall Road as part of the ABR Project will help to reduce HGV volumes on local roads, increasing safety, improve the localised environment for pedestrians and cyclists and reduce localised noise and air impacts.



8.7 CRUISE SHIPS

The DPC Masterplan seeks to develop and operate the port in such a way as to reintegrate it with Dublin City. Part of this includes bringing cruise ships closer to the city which is an aspiration and a planning objective as listed in the following documents:

Dublin Docklands Master Plan 2008: Policy T36 relates to the provision of Cruise Liner facilities;

Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017: Objective RE016 relates to a review of the Cruise Liner disembarking point with a view to increased connectivity with the City Centre;

Local Action Plan City of Dublin July 2011: this refers to the relocation of the Cruise Liner berths to the North Wall Quay Extension and addresses the increased connectivity to the City Centre and the improved public realm possibilities.

The ABR Project facilities the delivery of these objectives.

In 2013, 100 cruise ships called at Dublin Port. There are regular occurrences of two or three cruise ships being accommodated within the Port in one day. It is assumed that this pattern will continue into the future. A cruise ship at Dublin Port can typically generate:

30 - 40 coaches arriving before the AM peak hour period and normally departing after the peak hour period;

20 private cars arriving prior to the AM peak hour period;

With taxis operating on a looped system, there could be 20 taxis waiting to pick up passengers;

Coaches return throughout the day (depending on destination);

Many coaches use the Dublin Port Tunnel for destinations outside the Dublin City Area.

It is not envisaged that there will be any daily change beyond the current days when three cruise ships are accommodated, but it is likely that there will be more days when there are three ships in the port at the same time.

The 2013 cruise ship schedule indicated the following:

45 days when 1 cruise ship docked in Dublin Port

23 days when 2 cruise ships docked in Dublin Port

3 days when 3 cruise ships docked in Dublin Port

At present Dublin Port and the surrounding highway network readily accommodates the traffic generated by three Cruise Liners arriving into Dublin Port on the one day with the majority of the traffic outside of peak hours.



In theory, based on the 2013 cruise ship season (173 days April - September) the surrounding highway network could effectively accommodate (173 days x 3 cruise ships) 519 cruise ships docking in Dublin Port without impacting upon the current traffic volumes being accommodated on the surrounding highway network on a regular basis on the busiest day.

Table 8.7.1 shows the number of cruise ships that docked in Dublin Port in each month during 2013.

Table 8.7.1 Number of Cruise Liners Docking per Month (April to September 2013)

Month Number of Cruise Liners Percentage of Cruise Liners

April 3 3% May 23 23% June 8 8% July 20 20% August 30 30% September 16 16% Total 100 100%

The majority of cruise ships arrive during August, when schools are off on holiday and background traffic volumes are reduced (due to summer holidays). 50% of all cruise ships which docked at Dublin Port in 2013 occur during the summer months when traffic is generally lightest on the road network.

Table 8.7.2 provides a breakdown of the number of cruise ships that arrived on each day of the week (throughout the 2013 April - September period).

Table 8.7.2 Number of Cruise Liners Docking on days of the week

Day of Week Number of Cruise Liners Percentage of Cruise Liners

Monday 12 12% Tuesday 14 14% Wednesday 21 21% Thursday 7 7% Friday 18 18% Saturday 12 12% Sunday 16 16% Total 100 100%

DPC predict that Cruise Liner passengers will increase from 106,324 passengers in 2013 to 342,965 passengers by 2032. This equates to an average increase of approximately 12,500 passengers per year (between 2013 and 2032) due to the increased size of cruise vessels. DPC predict that the number of Dublin Cruise calls will increase from 83 in 2013 to 140 in



2032. The predicted increase in passenger numbers and cruise calls are indicated in Figures 8.7.1 and 8.7.2.

Figure 8.7.1 DPC Predictions of cruise passenger numbers to 2032

Figure 8.7.2 DPC Predictions of cruise ship numbers to 2032

DPC have provided RPS with detailed information (between 0700 - 1830 hours) for the MSC Magnifica which docked on 19th August 2013 and had 2,468 passengers on board. The MSC Magnifica would be considered one of the larger cruise ships (at approximately 300m long) which would dock at Dublin Port currently. Table 8.7.3 indicates the hourly arrival / departure profile for buses and taxis servicing the MSC Magnifica.



Table 8.7.3 Cruise Ship Profile - MSC Magnifica (19th August 2013)

Time Bus In Bus Out Taxi In Taxi Out

Total Trips

0700 - 0800 36 0 6 1 43 0800 - 0900 4 18 6 14 42 0900 - 1000 5 16 14 16 51 1000 - 1100 7 10 7 13 37 1100 - 1200 11 10 21 20 62 1200 - 1300 22 16 11 10 59 1300 - 1400 9 12 11 9 41 1400 - 1500 9 13 19 20 61 1500 - 1600 2 1 22 26 51 1600 - 1700 12 16 22 20 70 1700 - 1800 13 14 32 37 96 1800 - 1830 2 2 16 19 39

Total Trips 652 The existing daily traffic volumes on Promenade Road and the Dublin Port Tunnel (which are the two routes that cruise traffic will access directly onto) is 44,834 vehicles, therefore, the overall impact of a large cruise vessel (652 total trips) is only 1.45% of the total which represents an insignificant impact upon the main traffic corridors.

8.8 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC

Construction traffic will arrive and depart the Port via the Dublin Port Tunnel. This is in keeping with the Dublin City Council HGV Management Strategy which was introduced on 19th February 2007 to encourage maximum use of the Dublin Port Tunnel by port-related traffic and to enhance the city centre environment.

The Dublin City Council HGV Management Strategy provides for a ban on 5+ axle vehicles during the hours of 0700 - 1900 seven days a week from a cordon area within the City as shown in Figure 8.8.1. This strategy has resulted in dramatic reductions of 5+ axle vehicles within the city centre area of between 80% and 94% on different routes (quoted on Dublin City Council website).

One of the main reasons the cordon was introduced was to minimise the use of the city streets by HGVs travelling to/from Dublin Port.



Figure 8.8.1 Dublin City Council - Heavy Goods Vehicles - Cordon Restrictions



Therefore, based on the accessibility of the Dublin Port Tunnel to the strategic highway network and the Dublin City Council HGV Management Strategy, the construction traffic associated with the ABR Project will be instructed to use the Dublin Port Tunnel which has significant spare capacity throughout the day.

The indicative construction programme for the ABR Project (Appendix 4) has formed the basis for deriving the likely construction traffic on the road network. The predicted construction vehicles per month and the maximum predicted vehicles per hour per day during the highest month of activity are shown in Figure 8.8.2.

It is predicted that the maximum number of construction vehicles per month is 6,302 assuming six working days per week based on a worst case scenario of all materials arriving by land rather than by sea. This equates to 32.8 vehicles (one way) per hour (for an eight hour day) or 26.3 vehicles (one way) per hour (for a 10 hour day). The maximum number of construction vehicles is therefore expected to be 65.6 vehicles per hour (two way).

The capacity of the Dublin Port Tunnel is circa 7,200 vehicles per hour, so the maximum predicted construction traffic will therefore be less than 1% of the tunnel’s capacity which is insignificant.



Figure 8.8.2 ABR Project - Construction Vehicles per Month



8.9 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS

The ABR Project will assist in achieving the objectives of DPC Masterplan, that is, to cater for 60m gross tonnes of cargo by 2040 which equates to a growth of 2.5% per annum from 2012 to 2040.

The ABR Project will also result in the closure of two existing accesses to the port and therefore an associated re-distribution of existing traffic within the port will occur. The two accesses are:

Terminal 3 Access (left in / left out) on East Wall Road; and

Alexandra Road Access on East Wall Road to all operational traffic with the exception of access to DPC Head Offices.

A Traffic Assessment (TA) has been undertaken to determine the impact of the associated 2.5% per annum growth in port traffic upon the surrounding highway network. The results show that the overall impact is predicted to be less than 10% upon the surrounding highway network even by 2040.

There will be a significant reduction in the volume of traffic along the frontage of Dublin Port from East Wall Road to North Wall Quay due to the closure of Alexandra Road and Terminal 3 accesses as part of the ABR Project.

This reduction in daily traffic volume along this frontage should be considered as a significant planning gain as the closure of these accesses removes a significant portion of traffic which currently has to U-turn at North Wall Quay roundabout due to the permitted 'left turn only exit' at both Alexandra Road and Terminal 3 accesses.

There is significant Public Realm at The Point and reducing the volume of traffic at this location should be considered as a positive impact of the proposed development. This reduction in traffic volumes and the removal of U-turning traffic will also facilitate the softening of the boundary to Dublin Port and the potential signalisation of the East Wall Road / North Wall Quay roundabout into a T-junction (plans proposed by Dublin City Council). The signalisation of this junction would create controlled pedestrian crossings and improve pedestrian safety along a future pedestrian desire line (for cruise passengers).

The growth in traffic associated with the planned expansion of the cruise line business was found to have no significant impact upon the surrounding highway network

Similarly, the impact of construction traffic was found to have no significant impact upon the surrounding highway network.



8.10 SERVICES

Water Supply

The supply of potable water to Dublin Port Company is provided by Dublin City Council. Water is used in the Port for a variety of uses including:

- Washing down facilities;

- Supply of water for administration buildings;

- Supply of water to ships to re-stock their internal water tanks.

The water demand requirements of the ABR Project will have no impact on the water supply to tenants within the Dublin Port Estate or on neighbouring communities.

Electricity Supply

The electricity supply to Dublin Port Company is provided by ESB networks. The current electricity supply to the Port is robust and provides ample capacity to the Dublin Port Estate.

The ABR Project will have no impact on the electricity supply to tenants within the Dublin Port Estate or on neighbouring communities.

Electricity Supply Network and Infrastructure

ESB / ESB Networks have been consulted with respect to the ABR Project. ESB / ESB Networks have provided information on the location of their electricity supply networks and infrastructure including high voltage cables crossing the Navigation Channel and the location of the intake and outfall from the Poolbeg Electricity Generating Station.

There are two 220 kV sub-aqua cables across the Liffey. There are also fibre optic cables and 10kV cables installed in the same submarine pipelines. These cables are at a depth of 10 m underneath the current seabed level. The proposed capital dredging scheme will deepen the navigation channel from – 7.8m CD to – 10m CD, that is, an average depth of 2.2m. The existing high voltage sub-aqua cables will not, therefore, be impacted by the proposed capital dredging scheme.

ESB Networks have underground cables along the North Wall Quay Extension and in other parts of Alexandra Basin West. They have advised that “no works should be carried out in the vicinity of 38kV or higher voltage underground cables without prior consultation with ESB networks”. The engineering design team are aware of the locations of the cables from existing service drawings and will take this into consideration during the construction phase of the project. ESB Networks will be contacted when any works are planned in close proximity to any of their assets.

There is a cooling water intake and outfall servicing three power stations, including the Poolbeg Electricity Generating Station. Further discussion with the operators will take place during the development of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to



ensure safeguards are put in place to avoid disruption to the power station. Measures will include the establishment of monitoring buoys and the setting of water quality trigger levels which can initiate the temporary cessation of elements of the works which may be causing elevated levels of water quality parameters such as turbidity during dredging. The proposed capital dredging scheme of the navigation channel will not directly impact on the physical integrity of either the intake or outfall pipes as both pipes lie outside the footprint of the area to be dredged.

Gas Infrastructure

There are no underground gas pipelines in any of the areas proposed for development.

The ABR Project will therefore have no impact on the gas supply to tenants within the Dublin Port Estate or on neighbouring communities.

Sewerage Infrastructure

Separate foul and storm water drainage systems are in existence within the Dublin Port Estate. The existing set-up will continue at Alexandra Basin West in that surface water will be directed to the storm water system and discharged into the sea via storm water outfalls.

There are a number of existing storm water outfalls discharging into Alexandra Basin West. These outfalls will be incorporated into the new quay walls and continue to be used for storm water discharge after the construction works are completed. The storm water network will be upgraded during the construction works by making improvements to existing oil inceptors and silt trap infrastructure to improve the quality of the discharge water to the receiving waters.

There is a major sewerage pipeline running across Dublin Bay. This pipeline coveys wastewater from Sutton to the Waste Water Treatment plant in Ringsend. The pipeline is located in a trench at a depth of -15m CD. The proposed capital dredging scheme will deepen the navigation channel from – 7.8m CD to – 10m CD and therefore the existing sewerage pipeline will therefore not be impacted by the proposed capital dredging scheme.

Wastewater arising within the Dublin Port Estate is collected through the existing sewerage network which in turn is connected into the municipal wastewater system for Dublin City which is operated and managed by Dublin City Council/Irish Water. There are no significant new buildings associated with the ABR Project and therefore no significant increase in the volume of wastewater arising from the project.

Ships arriving and departing from Dublin Port are strictly forbidden to discharge wastewater of any sort within the Basins or approach waters to Dublin Port. This will continue to be the case when the ABR Project is complete. There are currently no pump-out facilities for vessels at the port and there are no plans for same as a result of the ABR Project.

The ABR Project will therefore have no impact on the sewerage network of tenants within the Dublin Port Estate or on neighbouring communities.



9. COASTAL PROCESSES

9.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

This Chapter of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) examines the impact of the proposed works on the coastal processes of Dublin Bay and provides information about the dispersion and fate of the material lost to the water column during the dredging and disposal operations.

9.2 METHODOLOGY

RPS used a suite of coastal process models based on the MIKE 21 software developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) to address potential coastal processes issues.

In order to quantify the overall impact of the ABR Project, the study utilised a series of model simulations to investigate the following:

• The impact of the proposed channel deepening on the tidal regime and inshore wave climate around Dublin Bay;

• The stability of the proposed channel deepening and its impact on the sediment transport regime;

• The suitability of the existing offshore dredge disposal site as a receptor for the material dredged during the proposed redevelopment;

• The fate of the sediment that is dumped at the spoil site; and

• The impact of sediment plumes generated during the dredging of Alexandra Basin West and the deepening of the approach channel.

9.3 DATA COLLECTION AND SITE SURVEYS

A thorough historical review of relevant data pertaining to the existing fairway and approach channel at Dublin Port was undertaken to support the assessment of the stability of the existing channel comprising

• Collation of maps showing historic changes to the alignment and depth of the channel;

• Relevant information associated with previous maintenance dredging campaigns including dredge quantities, type of material, dredging rates and disposal; and

• Collation of existing tidal height and tidal current records.



Site surveys were also undertaken comprising

• Bathymetric surveys;

• Geophysical surveys that were conducted in conjunction with the bathymetric surveys;

• Current meter surveys using two acoustic doppler current profilers (ADCPs); and

• Sediment sampling, including particle size analyses (PSA).

Site surveys were undertaken by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd during June and July 2013.

The location and coverage of the bathymetric and geophysical survey is shown in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1 Location and coverage of the 2013 bathymetric and geophysical survey

Two ADCP current meters were deployed in June 2013 to record current speed, direction and water depth. One meter was located in the harbour channel in close proximity to buoy 16 and the other to the north of approach channel. The current meters were deployed for over one month to record full spring and neap tidal cycles.

This data was complimented by data that was recorded by an ADCP current meter that was deployed 500m west of Burford bank for a previous study undertaken by DHI in relation to a proposed outfall from Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant (DHI, 2010). The location of all three ADCPs is shown in Figure 9.2.

Alexandra

IBE0807/E

Figure

9.4 P

Dublin Chart Dinfill thechanne10.0m Crealignecalculat

•

•

•

The macontam/modera

a Basin Redevel

EIS01

9.2 DeploDubl

PROPOSED

Port CompaDatum (CD)e basin at

el to Dublin CD. The exed approacted as appr

3.2million m

2.7million m

0.47million channel.

aterial to beinated whiately contam

lopment Project

oyment loclin Bay

D CHANN

any propose. The sedimBerths 52Port will b

xpected ovech channelroximately:

m3 of mainly

m3of mainly

m3 of main

e dredged fle some ominated (se

t

cations of

EL DESIG

es to deepement that is /53. As pa

be deepeneerall capitall, harbour

y fine sand f

silty materi

nly silty mat

from the Aleof the mateee chapter 1

9-3

ADCP cu

GN

en Alexanddredged fro

art of the ded to increa dredging vchannel a

from the ou

ial from the

terial from

exandra Baerial in the11).

urrent mete

ra Basin Wom Alexanddevelopmenase the rulivolume of 6and Alexan

uter approac

inner harbo

the Alexand

asin West he channel

Environ

ers in Dub

West to achiedra Basin Wnt, the fairwng depth fr6.37million ndra Basin

ch channel;

our channe

der Basin W

has been shoutside the

nmental Impact

[Fina

blin Harbo

eve depths West will be way and arom -7.8m m3 requiredWest hav

l; and

West and a

hown to bee basin is

t Statement

al]

our and

of -10m used to

pproach CD to -

d for the ve been

adjoining

e heavily slightly



The existing approach channel entering the harbour is partially restricted at the end of the Bull Walls. It can be seen from Figure 9.3 that this restriction forms a slight chicane in the channel at the entrance to the Port and creates navigational difficulties for larger vessels. The design of the new dredged channel includes the realignment of the channel to remove this chicane to provide improved navigational access for larger ships entering the Port. The bathymetry of the existing and proposed approach channel and of Alexandra Basin West pre and post the capital dredging scheme is presented in Figure 9.3 and Figure 9.4 respectively.

Figure 9.3 Existing approach channel bathymetry to Mean Sea Level (MSL)

Figure 9.4 Proposed approach channel bathymetry to Mean Sea Level (MSL)

Alexandra

IBE0807/E

9.5

Coasta

The coasedimemodel wPort in Survey Coasta

The tidamodel. resolutiaround presentwave bthe offsbathym

The DuinformaThe bat

Figure

a Basin Redevel

EIS01

MODELIIN

al Process

astal procent transporwas taken f2013 and (INSS), IN

l Protection

al boundariThis modelon) varyingthe Irish c

ted in Figuoundary dashore Kish etry of the I

ublin Bay mation on the thymetry an

9.5 Extentwave

lopment Project

NG THE IM

Models

esses were rt model, wfrom the hywas suppleFOMAR an Strategy S

es for the il was develog from circcoastline. Tre 9.5. RPS

ata for the Dand Codlin

ICPSS east

model was dcoastal pro

nd meshing

t and bathymodel (rig

t

MPACT OF

simulated which is a 2ydrographic emented by

nd other locStudy (ICPS

nner Dublinoped using a 24km alo

The extent aS also utilisDublin Bay ng banks wt coast wav

developed ocesses aroof the tidal

ymetry of tht)

9-5

F THE CHA

using the c2D depth av

survey cony bathymet

cal bathymeSS).

n Bay modeflexible me

ong the offand bathymsed their ICmodel to ewere accoue model is a

using flexibound the hamodels are

the ICPSS t

ANNEL ON

coupled MIKveraged monducted in ttric data fro

etric surveys

el were takeesh technoloffshore Atlametry of theCPSS east nsure that tunted for inalso presen

ble mesh tearbour and te presented

tidal surge

Environ

N COASTA

KE 21 tidal odel. Bathythe shippingom the Irishs collated b

en from theogy with the

antic bounde ICPSS tid

coast wavthe hydrodyn the modented in Figu

echnology the greater

d in Figure 9

e model (le

nmental Impact

[Fina

AL PROCE

current, waymetry datag channel oh National

by RPS for t

e ICPSS tide mesh sizedary to circdal surge mve model toynamic influel. The extre 9.5.

to provide Dublin Bay

9.6.

eft) and eas

t Statement

al]

ESSES

ave and a for the of Dublin Seabed the Irish

al surge e (model ca 200m model is o gather uence of tent and

detailed y region.

st coast



Figure 9.6 Extent and bathymetry of the Dublin Bay model (left) and the mesh structure of the Dublin Bay model (right)

The Dublin Bay model had mesh sizes varying from 250,000 m2 (equivalent to 500m x 500m squares) at the outer boundary of the model down to a very fine 225 m2 (equivalent to 15m x 15m squares) along the approach channel and around the harbour channel and Alexandra Basin West. All the model bathymetry data sets were set as depth relative to mean sea level to resolve the problem of chart datum varying over the model area.

River flows Mean annual river flows for the Liffey, Dodder and Tolka, as shown in Table 9.1, were used in the modelling of the stability of the approach channel.

Mean winter river flows for the Liffey, Dodder and Tolka, also shown in Table 9.1, were used in the modelling of the dispersion and fate of sediment plumes arising from the capital dredging works since the dredging works are to be restricted to the winter months only.

Table 9.1 River Flows from the Liffey, Dodder and Tolka used in the coastal process models

Source

Mean annual discharge rate

(m3/s) Mean winter discharge rate

(m3/s)

Liffey 15.6 25.0 Dodder 2.3 2.6 Tolka 1.4 1.6



9.6 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED CAPITAL DREDGING SCHEME ON THE TIDAL REGIME

The Mike 21 Hydro Dynamic (HD) model was used to simulate the existing tidal regime in Dublin Bay, including the fairway, approach channel and berths of Dublin Port. Typical tidal flow patterns for a spring ebb tide are presented in Figure 9.7 and for a spring flood tide in Figure 9.8.

The model of the existing tidal regime was calibrated using tidal height data and current data from the deployed ADCP current meters to ensure that the model results were representative of actual conditions (see Appendix 9).

To assess the impact of the proposed capital dredging scheme, the bathymetry of the existing tidal model was altered to include the capital dredging of the fairway, approach channel and Alexandra Basin West and the infilling of the Berth 52/53 basin. Comparisons of the hydrodynamic regime under normal spring tidal conditions with that of the existing tidal flow regime were then made to quantify the impact of the proposed capital dredging scheme.

The predicted typical spring ebb and flood flow regimes post the capital dredging scheme is presented in Figure 9.9 and Figure 9.10 for spring ebb and spring flood regimes respectively.

The difference in the mid spring ebb and flood current velocities between the simulation with the existing and post capital dredging scheme bathymetries are presented in Figure 9.11 and Figure 9.12 respectively. These plots represent the differences in flow velocities during spring mid ebb and spring mid flood tidal conditions. It can be seen that the changes in the tidal flow velocities between the existing and proposed channel configurations are not significant outside the immediate vicinity of the channel.

The differences in the mean current velocity over the full ebb and flood tides are presented in Figure 9.13 and Figure 9.14 respectively. These figures show that the proposed capital dredging scheme will cause no significant change to the tidal regime outside the immediate vicinity of the proposed works.

It can therefore be concluded that the proposed capital dredging works will have no impact on the tidal regime in the greater Dublin Bay area outside the immediate vicinity of the approach channel.

Within the approach channel, the tidal regime will perform in the same manner. The only change occurs where the channel has been realigned. There will be no perceptible change in the tidal velocity within the channel or in its power to cause scouring of the seabed.



Figure 9.7 Typical spring ebb flow pattern – Existing Port Channel

Figure 9.8 Typical spring flood flow pattern - Existing Port Channel



Figure 9.9 Typical spring ebb flow pattern – Post Capital Dredging Scheme

Figure 9.10 Typical spring flood flow pattern - Post Capital Dredging Scheme



Figure 9.11 Difference in mid spring ebb current velocity as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme

Figure 9.12 Difference in mid spring flood current velocity as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme



Figure 9.13 Difference in the mean spring ebb current velocity as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme

Figure 9.14 Difference in the mean spring flood current velocity as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme



9.7 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED CAPITAL DREDGING SCHEME ON THE WAVE CLIMATE

The hydrodynamic regime around Dublin Port and its approach channel can be influenced by waves generated within in the greater Dublin Bay area and the Irish Sea. An assessment was undertaken to determine the impact of the proposed capital dredging scheme on the wave climate.

For the modelling exercise, the inshore wave climate around the Port and the greater Dublin Bay area was established by transforming offshore waves into Dublin Port using the Mike 21 Spectral Wave (SW) modelling module. This is a spectral wave module that describes the propagation, growth and decay of waves in near-shore areas and takes account of the effects of refraction, shoaling, local wind generation and energy dissipation due to bottom friction and wave breaking.

The offshore wave data for points at 5.66oW, 55.50oN and 5.66oW, 55.25oN was taken from the UK Met Office European wave model for the period 1989-2004 and used as a source to select the largest event for each of the north east, east and south east directions. The three hourly data included wind wave and swell wave components in the form of the significant wave height Hmo, mean wave period Tm and mean wave directions. The offshore wave climate data used in the wave transformation simulations are presented in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 Offshore wave climate data used to simulate the inshore wave climate

Significant wave height (m)

Peak wave period (s)

Mean wave direction (oN)

North Easterly event 4.6 8.9 29

Easterly event 4.1 8.8 98

South Easterly event 5.4 10.4 148

The inshore wave climate at Dublin Bay was established by transforming these offshore wave conditions to Dublin Bay for the north easterly, easterly and south easterly storm events. This was undertaken using both the existing bathymetry of the fairway, approach channel and Dublin Port berths and the proposed bathymetry post the capital dredging scheme.

Figure 9.15 to Figure 9.20 show the inshore wave heights in Dublin Bay at spring high tide during north easterly, easterly and south easterly storm events pre and post the proposed capital dredging scheme.

Wave height difference plots are presented for the three storm events in Figure 9.21 to Figure 9.23 to highlight changes to the inshore wave climate as a result of the capital dredging scheme. The results show that there are no significant differences in the wave heights outside the immediate vicinity of the approach channel for each of the storm events. Similar results were observed in the wave climate simulations run at mid and low tide levels.

It can therefore be concluded that the proposed capital dredging works will have no impact on the wave climate in the either the approach channel or in the greater Dublin Bay area outside the immediate vicinity of the approach channel.



Figure 9.15 North Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Existing Port Channel

Figure 9.16 North Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Post Capital Dredging Scheme



Figure 9.17 Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Existing Port Channel

Figure 9.18 Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Post Capital Dredging Scheme



Figure 9.19 South Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Existing Port Channel

Figure 9.20 South Easterly storm wave heights at spring high water – Post Capital Dredging Scheme



Figure 9.21 North Easterly Storm - Difference in significant wave heights at spring high water as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme

Figure 9.22 Easterly Storm - Difference in significant wave heights at spring high water as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme



Figure 9.23 South Easterly Storm - Difference in significant wave heights at spring high water as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme

9.8 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED CAPITAL DREDGING SCHEME ON THE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT REGIME AND MORPHOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE CHANNEL

9.8.1 Review of previous maintenance dredging campaigns

A series of digital bathymetric surveys of the approach channel were available from Dublin Port records. The surveys were undertaken in association with maintenance dredging campaigns covering the periods:

• 2007 to 2008

• 2008 to 2009

• 2009 to 2010

• 2011 to mid 2012

• Mid 2012 to late 2012

Each of the above-mentioned surveys were input to a Geographical Information System (GIS) and overlain to determine changes in dredged depth and areas of accretion.



During the period from December 2007 to January 2008, maintenance dredging operations were undertaken to restore the depths in the harbour channel and to remove material which had encroached along the north side of the approach channel as shown in Figure 9.24. The amount of material removed from the harbour and approach channel during this survey was circa 0.41million m3.

Figure 9.24 Change in the depth of the approach channel between December 2007 and

January 2008 (including maintenance dredging)

From March 2009 to March 2010 there was a general accretion of sediment in the approach channel. The accretion is most notable along the northern edge of the approach channel seaward of the Bull Wall and along the side slopes of the channel landward of the Bull Wall. The net increase in sedimentation of the approach channel was 0.181million m3 during this one year period (see Figure 9.25).

Figure 9.25 Change in the depth of the approach channel between March 2009 and March 2010 (no maintenance dredging)



From September 2011 to July 2012, some 0.218million m3 of sediment was removed from the approach channel as part of routine maintenance dredging operations that were conducted to remove sediment that had accreted in the channel during the preceding period as shown on Figure 9.26. The dredging operations removed sediment from along the south and north side slopes of the channel landward of the Bull Wall and from the north side of the approach channel seaward of the Bull Wall. It should be noted that some 0.65million m3 of material was removed from the whole of the harbour area during this period but much of this material was from parts of the harbour not covered by this comparative study.

Figure 9.26 Change in the depth of the approach channel between September 2011 and July 2012 (including maintenance dredging)

The review of previous maintenance dredging campaigns has identified the following:

• There is a consistent tendency for sediment to become deposited along the north side of the approach channel from the end of the North Bull Wall towards Buoy No. 3; and

• There is a tendency for the width of the approach channel landward of the Bull Walls to decrease over time. This is most likely to be a direct result of the deposition of sediment from fluvial sources, coupled with the hydrodynamic influence of manoeuvring ships.



9.8.2 Model Simulations

Morphological model simulations were used to assess the impact of the capital dredging scheme on the sediment transport regime and the stability of the existing and proposed approach channel. The simulations took account of tides, waves, sediment transport and morphological changes to the seabed during extreme storm events from the North Easterly, Easterly and South Easterly sectors.

It is during these extreme storm events that the approach channel is exposed to the most arduous hydrodynamic conditions and is most susceptible to infilling.

In the morphological model simulations, the sea bed bathymetry was updated every 15 minutes in response to the effect of tides, waves and sediment transport. The changes in bathymetry were automatically included in the hydrodynamic and spectral wave simulations to ensure the morphological changes were accurately modelled throughout each storm event.

The storm events were established by examining 15 years of three hourly wind and wave data for the period 1989 to 2004 provided by the UK Met Office and selecting the largest event for each of the North Easterly, Easterly and South Easterly sectors. To produce the most arduous conditions, the storms were run over a period which included large spring tides, with the peak of the storm coinciding with the maximum spring tide.

The stability of the channel was assessed by calculating the change in the morphological response of the sea bed level over the course of the storm event. In addition to this, a comparison was made of the morphological changes in the bathymetry of Dublin Bay between the existing approach channel and the proposed approach channel for each storm event to determine if the proposed capital dredging scheme would have a significant impact on the sediment transport regime of the area.

North Easterly storm event

As the North Easterly storm event had a duration of only 4.5 days, the event was simulated with a morphological speed up factor of 2, so that the morphological changes equated to a nine day storm. The offshore wave heights, wave periods and tidal regime during this event are presented in Figure 9.27.

By comparing Figure 9.28 and Figure 9.29 which presents the change in the sea bed level after the North Easterly storm event for the existing and proposed approach channel respectively, it will be seen that the morphological response of the sea bed to the storm has a similar pattern pre and post the proposed capital dredging scheme.

Figure 9.30 presents the difference in sea bed level change between the existing and proposed channel during this storm event. It will be seen from this diagram that the proposed new channel does not result in any significant change in the morphological response of the sea bed in Dublin Bay outside the channel area during a North Easterly storm.



Figure 9.27 Morphological model simulation input data for a North Easterly storm event - Offshore wave height and period (upper diagram) and tidal regime (lower diagram)

Figure 9.28 Change in bed levels after a North Easterly storm event – Existing Port Channel



Figure 9.29 Change in bed levels after a North Easterly storm event - Post Capital

Dredging Scheme

Figure 9.30 Difference in bed level change as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme - North Easterly storm event



Easterly storm event

The Easterly storm event was simulated using the morphological model over a period of eight days for both the existing and proposed approach channel. The offshore wave heights, wave periods and tidal regime during this event are presented in Figure 9.31.

By comparing Figure 9.32 and Figure 9.33 which presents the change in the sea bed level after the Easterly storm event for the existing and proposed approach channel respectively, it will be seen that the morphological response of the sea bed to the storm has a similar pattern pre and post the proposed capital dredging scheme. Figure 9.34 presents the difference in sea bed level change between the existing and proposed channel during this storm event. It will be seen from this diagram that the proposed new channel does not result in any significant change in the morphological response of the sea bed in Dublin Bay outside the channel area during an Easterly storm.

Figure 9.31 Morphological model simulation input data for an Easterly storm event - Offshore wave height and period (upper diagram) and tidal regime (lower diagram)



Figure 9.32 Change in bed levels after an Easterly storm event – Existing Port Channel

Figure 9.33 Change in bed levels after an Easterly storm event - Post Capital Dredging Scheme



Figure 9.34 Difference in bed level change as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme - Easterly storm event

South easterly storm event

The South Easterly storm event was the most energetic of all three of storms simulated with the offshore wave heights exceeding 4.5m on several instances. The morphological model simulated a ten day storm event for both the existing and proposed approach channels, the offshore wave heights, wave periods and tidal regime during the event are presented in Figure 9.35.

By comparing Figure 9.36 and Figure 9.37 which presents the change in the sea bed level after the South Easterly storm event for the existing and proposed approach channel respectively, it will be seen that the morphological response of the sea bed to the storm has a similar pattern pre and post the proposed capital dredging scheme. Figure 9.38 presents the difference in sea bed level change between the existing and proposed channel during this storm event. It will be seen from this diagram that the proposed new channel does not result in any significant change in the morphological response of the sea bed in Dublin Bay outside the channel area during a South Easterly storm.



Figure 9.35 Morphological model simulation input data for a South Easterly storm event - Offshore wave height and period (upper diagram) and tidal regime (lower diagram)

Figure 9.36 Change in bed levels after a South Easterly storm event – Existing Port Channel



Figure 9.37 Change in bed levels after a South Easterly storm event - Post Capital Dredging Scheme

Figure 9.38 Difference in bed level change as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme – South Easterly storm event



The results from the morphological simulations of the existing and proposed approach channel show that the proposed channel will perform in a similar manner to the existing channel. As with the existing channel there will be a tendency for the northern bank of the approach channel, seaward of the North Bull Wall, to migrate south under storm conditions. Similarly it is expected that there will be siltation along the banks of the approach channel landward of the Bull Walls with a tendency for these banks to migrate in towards the channel. It is expected that the new channel will require maintenance dredging of a similar magnitude to that required with the existing channel.

Overall, the results show that there will be no significant impact on the sediment transport regime within the River Liffey Channel, Tolka Estuary or Dublin Bay as a result of the capital dredging scheme.

9.9 DREDGING ACTIVITY AND DISPOSAL OF DREDGE MATERIAL

9.9.1 Summary of works

Capital Dredging within Alexandra Basin West

The redevelopment of Alexandra Basin West will include the construction of new quays and jetties and capital dredging to deepen the basin to -10m CD (further detail is contained in Chapter 4).

The dredging will involve removal of circa 0.47 million m3 of mainly silty material from Alexander Basin West. A programme of sediment quality sampling and analysis has shown that the sediments within Alexandra Basin West are contaminated and not suitable for disposal at sea (see Chapter 11).

The dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin West will be treated and transported by barge to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53. It will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material, to allow its re-use as fill material for reclamation works identified within the Port. This process is explained in more detail in Chapter 4.

The dredging will be undertaken using a floating pontoon with an excavator mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging. This will minimise the disturbance and escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water column. A silt curtain will also be utilised around the dredger whilst the dredging of contaminated material is ongoing.

Capital dredging of the Approach Channel

The ABR Project requires capital dredging of the navigation channel to a level of -10m CD, extending from the North Wall Quay Extension (downstream of the East Link Bridge) to the Dublin Bay Buoy. This equates to circa 5.9 million m3 of dredging (excluding the 0.47 million m3 to be dredged from Alexandra Basin West).

In order to negate any potential impact of the channel dredging on Poolbeg Marina, it is proposed to construct a marina wall along the edge of navigation channel at Poolbeg Marina as described in Chapter 4.



The sediment quality of the material to be dredged within the navigation channel has been tested for contamination and is suitable for disposal at sea, however, some of the material to be dredged from the channel outside Alexandra Basin West has shown slight/moderate levels of contamination (see chapter 11).

It is envisaged that the dredging of uncontaminated material will be carried out during winter months only (October to March) to negate any potential impact on salmonid mitigation (particularly smolts) and summer bird feeding, notably terns, in the vicinity of the dredging operations.

Dredging of slight/moderately contaminated silty material adjacent to the North Wall Quay Extension and the entrance to Alexandra Basin West will be undertaken in conjunction with the dredging of gravels from the main channel. The slight/moderately contaminated silts deposited at the dump site will be overlaid (capped) with the dredged gravels.

To suit the project programme, the dredging operations will generally be undertaken starting at the outer area of the channel and progressing inwards towards the harbour channel using a trailer suction dredger or equivalent. The dredged material will be loaded into barges and transported directly to a licensed sea disposal site located at the entrance to Dublin Bay.

9.9.2 Proposed disposal site of dredge material at sea

As outlined in the summary of works above, it is intended to dispose of the dredge material arising from the approach channel at a licensed sea disposal site (subject to the granting of a Dumping at Sea Permit by the EPA). The closest and preferred site is to the west of the Burford Bank as presented in Figure 9.39.

Figure 9.39 Location of the licensed dredged spoil disposal site



This disposal option is preferred because it keeps the dredge material within the natural Dublin Bay sediment cell.

Other disposal options were considered including beneficial reuse of the material such as material for beach re-nourishment, particularly at sites where erosion is taking place along the northern shoreline of Dublin Bay. Unfortunately the grading of the sand to be dredged was too fine to be suitable for this type of use. No other alternative use was identified which out-weighed the suitability of the disposal at sea option.

9.9.3 Assessment of the fate and dispersion of dredge spoil at the licensed offshore disposal site

A series of computational model simulations were undertaken to assess the dispersion and fate of the dredged material which is to be disposed of at the licensed offshore disposal site to the west of the Burford Bank.

The particle size distribution analysis of the sediment samples detailed in Appendix 11 shows that are essentially two different types of material that make up the sea bed of the navigation channel. The material in the sea bed of the navigation channel, seaward of the Bull Walls, is generally composed of afine sand whilst the material in the sea bed, landward of the Bull Walls, is generally composed of a fine silty material and a small proportion of coarser silt.

The results of the geophysical surveys show that rock is not expected to be encountered by the capital dredging activities required to achieve the design dredged depth of -10.0m CD.

Model simulations

The disposal operations at the licensed offshore disposal site were simulated using a Mike 21 sediment transport model that was coupled with the Mike 21 hydrodynamic module.

It was assumed that the volume of dredging would be spread relatively evenly over a six year period with an average volume of circa 0.177million m3 dredged per month. It was also assumed that the dredging would be undertaken on a 24/7 basis with barges disposing of the material over the dump site on a regular basis throughout each winter dredging campaign.

The model simulations were run for the disposal of the dredged material over the course of a complete lunar month, which includes the full range of spring and neap tidal flow conditions. The results were then extrapolated to estimate the deposition of both fine sand and silt over a full six month winter dredging campaign.

The deposition of the silt and fine sand fractions were modelled separately.

The deposition of silt at the licensed offshore disposal site

The characteristics of the silt modelled in the sediment transport simulation were determined from the Particle Size Distributions (PSDs) of the sediment samples collected in the harbour channel (see Chapter 11 and Appendix 11). In the model simulations, the sediment material was characterised by three discrete fractions with mean diameters of 200µm, 20µm and 3µm, with each fraction constituting 1/3 of the total volume of silt to be dredged.



The spill rate from the barges was taken to be 108kg ms-1, this equates to the disposal of circa 0.177million m3 per month. The coupled Mike21 sediment transport model was then used to simulate the fate of the silt released from the barges over the dump site by moving a sediment source along the track that the barge would take as it transverses the dump site area during the disposal operation. The model then simulated the dispersion settlement and re-erosion of each fraction of the silt in response to the tidal currents throughout the model area.

The coarser fraction of the silt, i.e. the sand fraction that had a mean grain size of 200µm was found to behave differently relative to the two finer fractions that had mean grain diameters of 20µm and 3µm. The sand fraction remained on the dump site, whereas the two finer silt fractions were carried away by the tidal currents.

The predicted deposition of the silt fractions of the dredged material within Dublin Bay at the end of the six month dredging campaign is presented in Figure 9.40. This Figure shows that only a very small amount of silt is deposited, resulting in a maximum sea bed level increase of less than 0.3µm. Thus, it can be concluded that the deposition site is fully dispersive for the silt fraction of the dredged material.

The impact of the silt dispersion on the suspended sediment concentration is shown by a series of plume diagrams, Figure 9.41 to Figure 9.48, taken from the silt dispersion simulation at times of high water, mid ebb, low water and mid flood at both spring and neap tides. It will be seen from these suspended sediment concentration plumes that apart from the area around the dump barge the sediment concentrations will remain below 20 mg/litre above back ground.



Figure 9.40 Total silt deposition after six months of continuous disposal of silt spoil material



Figure 9.41 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of high water neaps

Figure 9.42 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of mid ebb neaps



Figure 9.43 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of low water neaps

Figure 9.44 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of mid flood neaps



Figure 9.45 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of high water springs

Figure 9.46 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of mid ebb springs



Figure 9.47 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of low water springs

Figure 9.48 Suspended sediment concentration plume at times of mid flood springs



The deposition of sand at the licensed offshore disposal site

The characteristics of the sand modelled in the sediment transport simulation were determined from the sediment sampling survey described in Appendix 11. In the model simulations the sand material was defined by three discrete fractions, with mean grain diameters of 200µm, 100µm and 60µm. The percentage of the material was 20%, 60% and 20% for the 200µm, 100µm and 60µm fractions respectively. The spill rate from the barges depositing material at the dump site was 108kg/s-1, which is equivalent to the disposal of 0.177million m3 of dredging spoil per month.

The deposition of the sand on the disposal site after six months of dredging is shown in Figure 9.49. This Figure indicates that unlike the silt, virtually all of the sand sediment that was released from the barges over the spoil site is predicted to stay on the spoil site.

Figure 9.49 Total sand deposition after six months of continuous disposal of sand spoil material

The mean predicted suspended sediment concentration (SSC) of the sand fraction envelop is presented in Figure 9.50. The mean SSC envelop shows the mean concentration in every cell of the model which occur during the simulation. This Figure shows that the predicted suspended sediment concentrations during the disposal of the dredged sand material outside the immediate area of the disposal site are very low, with mean values of less than 0.02mg/l. Thus virtually all of the sand deposited on the dump site will remain on the site under normal tidal conditions.



Figure 9.50 Mean suspended sediment concentration during the disposal of sand spoil material

Movement of sand at the disposal site under storm conditions

Whilst the sand deposited on the dump site is not re-suspended by normal tidal action, it is expected that movement of the bed in this area will occur during storm events.

To assess the influence of storm events on the re-distribution of deposited sand at the spoil site, the movement of the sandy fraction of the dredged material at the spoil site during a South Easterly storm was simulated. This was undertaken using the coupled tide, wave and sediment transport model. The storm selected was that used for the channel stability simulation and details of the storm event are given in Figure 9.35. In order to be able to demonstrate the movement of the deposited sand on the disposal site, the remainder of the bed in the Dublin Bay model was fixed. In reality, the bed of the bay which is also sand will move under these same conditions.

This bed load transport of the sand during the ten day South Easterly storm is shown in Figure 9.51. This Figure shows the movement of sand from the disposal site at the end of the simulation. It shows that sand has moved away from the site and that sand waves have formed on the north eastern part of the site. These sand waves are similar to the sand waves that were observed in the hydrodynamic surveys of this area.



During the storm, circa 20% of the sand has been removed from the disposal site, indicating that gradually through time, the sand deposited on the site will be assimilated into the general sedimentary budget of the Bay and thus the sand will not be lost to the overall coastal processes of the greater Dublin Bay area.

Figure 9.51 Transport of the sand material from the spoil site at end of 10 day South Easterly storm event

Comparison of model predictions with previous dredging records

In 2008, a hydrographic survey of the disposal site was conducted and repeated again in 2013 after the spoil material that had been dredged from the approach channel during routine maintenance operations was dumped at the spoil site. These surveys were compared to determine how much the sea bed level changed as a result of the dredging campaign. Over the course of the maintenance operations, approximately 0.650million m3 of sediment was dumped within one segment of the spoil site. However, an assessment of the 2008 and 2013 hydrographic surveys indicated that the change in sea bed level equated to only an additional 0.075million m3 of sediment at this segment of the spoil site, whilst the change in sea bed level over the entire spoil site equated to an additional 0.094million m3 of sediment.

The maintenance dredging undertaken in 2012 included some 0.553million m3 of silts from the berths and the inner channel and 0.097million m3 of sandy material from the outer channel. Thus only about 15% of the quantity was sand material.

The data therefore indicated that a large proportion of the sediment that was dumped at the spoil site did not actually settle to the seabed but was instead dispersed and in addition some



of the material that did settle on the site has spread into the adjoining seabed area. This is consistent with the results of the model simulations indicating that the modelling is capable of reproducing the fate and dispersion of dredged spoil dumping. The survey of the existing dump site in 2013 also showed that the piles of partially contaminated material covered by the coarse material were still present on the site.

9.9.4 Assessment of the fate and dispersion of dredging plumes during the capital dredging scheme

The impact of the dredging plumes in Alexandra Basin West and the Liffey channel in the harbour

The dredging of Alexandra Basin West will be undertaken using specially adapted techniques as described in Chapter 4 to reduce the spread of contaminated material during the dredging operation. Thus there will be no significant loss of contaminated sediment to the water column from the dredging of Alexandra Basin West itself.

Simulations were undertaken to determine the concentration and distribution of sediment lost to the water column during the dredging operation in the Liffey channel in the harbour. The material to be dredged from the harbour channel is predominantly silt. As with the silt disposal modelling, the sediment material was characterised by three discrete fractions with mean diameters of 200µm, 20µm and 3µm. In the channel adjacent to the Alexandra Basin West each fraction constituted 1/3 of the total volume of silt to be dredged. In the outer parts of the Liffey channel in the harbour the sand fraction consisted about half of the total volume to be dredged. The coarser fraction of the silt, i.e. the sand fraction that had a mean grain size of 200µm was found to behave differently relative to the two finer fractions that had mean grain diameters of 20µm and 3µm. The sand fraction remained in the area of the dredging and produced virtually no plume, whereas the two finer silt fractions were carried away by the tidal currents. Thus the plume modelling was undertaken for the silt fractions with the silt losses being taken as 1% at the dredger head and 1% for the overspill at the surface.

The Liffey channel in the harbour is an area which is influenced by the fresh water river inflows and the temperature gradients from the three power station cooling water systems. Stratification of the water column takes place at certain time of the tide in Liffey channel particularly in the central section of the harbour. Therefore the simulations were undertaken using the integrated 3D Mike 3fm hydrodynamic and mud transport model which includes temperature and salinity effects. The Tolka, Liffey and Dodder river flows were taken as the winter average flows (Table 9.1). The power station flow and temperature characteristics used in the model are shown in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 Power Station discharge and temperature characteristics, Dublin Harbour

Plant Discharge m3/s ∆T degree C Outlet Intake North Wall 3.9 10 Surface layer Mid depth Synergen 7.6 6.6 Surface layer Mid depth Poolbeg 18.7 7.1 Surface layer Surface Layer



The extent and bathymetry of the 3D model, which had five vertical layers, is shown in Figure 9.52. The boundary conditions for the 3D model were taken from the results of the main Dublin Bay hydrodynamic model shown in Figure 9.6. The area of the Liffey channel in the 3D model is shown in more detail in Figure 9.53.

Figure 9.52 Extent and bathymetry of the 3D Dublin Port model

Figure 9.53 Bathymetry of harbour area of 3D model of proposed development



The dredging of the inner harbour channel will be undertaken over three separate six month winter periods. The modelling was therefore undertaken for dredging operations in the outer, middle and inner sections of the harbour channel.

Dredging of outer section of the Liffey channel in the harbour

The predicted deposition of the silt fractions lost to the water column during the dredging of the outer section of the Liffey channel in the harbour at the end of the six month dredging campaign is presented in Figure 9.54 This Figure shows that only an imperceptible amount of silt is deposited, resulting in a maximum deposition depth of less than 0.1µm. Thus, it can be concluded that the silt lost to the water column during the dredging of the outer section of the Liffey channel in the harbour will be widely dispersed within the Irish Sea.

The impact of the silt dispersion on the suspended sediment concentration is shown by a series of plume diagrams, Figure 9.55 to Figure 9.58, taken from the silt dispersion simulation at times of low water, mid flood, high water and mid ebb at the time during the dredging operation when the suspended sediment concentrations in the Tolka estuary were at their highest values. It will be seen from these suspended sediment concentration plumes that apart from the area around the dredger itself, the sediment concentrations will peak at about 25 mg/l above background and the mean value over the whole of the dredging period will be less than about 10 mg/l above background.

Figure 9.54 Total silt deposition after six months of dredging of the outer section of the Liffey channel in the harbour



Figure 9.55 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of low water

Figure 9.56 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of mid flood



Figure 9.57 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of high water

Figure 9.58 Suspended sediment concentration plume at time of mid ebb



Dredging of middle section of the Liffey channel in the harbour

The predicted deposition of the silt fractions lost to the water column during the dredging of the middle section of the Liffey channel in the harbour at the end of the six month dredging campaign is presented in Figure 9.59. This Figure shows that only an imperceptible amount of silt is deposited outside the harbour channel resulting in a maximum deposition depth of less than 0.2µm. Thus, it can be concluded that the silt lost to the water column during the dredging of the middle section of the Liffey channel in the harbour will be will be widely dispersed within the Irish Sea.

The impact of the silt dispersion on the suspended sediment concentration is shown by a series of plume diagrams, Figure 9.60 to Figure 9.63, taken from the silt dispersion simulation at times of low water, mid flood, high water and mid ebb at the time during the dredging operation when the suspended sediment concentrations in the Tolka estuary were at their highest values. It will be seen from these suspended sediment concentration plumes that apart from the area around the dredger itself, the sediment concentrations will peak at about 30 mg/litre above background and the mean value over the whole of the dredging period will be less than 16 mg/l above background.

Figure 9.59 Total silt deposition after six months of dredging of the middle section of the Liffey channel in the harbour











Dredging of inner section of the Liffey channel in the harbour

The predicted deposition of the silt fractions lost to the water column during the dredging of the inner section of the Liffey channel in the harbour at the end of the six month dredging campaign is presented in Figure 9.64. This Figure shows that an imperceptible amount of silt is deposited outside the harbour channel harbour basins resulting in a maximum deposition depth of less than 0.05µm. Thus, it can be concluded that the silt lost to the water column during the dredging of the inner section of the Liffey channel in the harbour will be almost entirely contained within the harbour area.

The impact of the silt dispersion on the suspended sediment concentration is shown by a series of plume diagrams, Figure 9.65 to Figure 9.68, taken from the silt dispersion simulation at times of low water, mid flood, high water and mid ebb at the time during the dredging operation when the suspended sediment concentrations in the Tolka estuary were at their highest values. It will be seen from these suspended sediment concentration plumes that apart from the area in the harbour channel and basins, the sediment concentrations will peak at about 26 mg/l above background and the mean value over the whole of the dredging period will be less than about 18 mg/litre above background.

Figure 9.64 Total silt deposition after six months of dredging of the inner section of the Liffey channel in the harbour











Impact of harbour channel dredging on power station cooling water systems

The suspended sediment concentration at the various power station cooling water inlets has been extracted from each of the three dredging campaigns. The peak and mean increase in the suspended sediment concentrations predicted by the 3D model simulations are as given in Table 9.4 :

Table 9.4 Peak and mean suspended sediment concentrations at various power station cooling inlets

Cooling water intake Dredging Location Peak Concentration

(mg/litre) Average Concentration

(mg/litre)

Poolbeg power station

Inner channel 30 18 Middle channel 23 14 Outer 16 8

Synergen power station


North Wall station


It will be seen from the results of the simulations that the levels of additional suspended sediment concentrations at the power station intakes is relatively small and is unlikely to have a significant effect on the power station operations.

9.10 CONCLUSIONS

An extensive programme of model simulations, supported by fieldwork and literature review, has been undertaken to evaluate how the proposed ABR Project would impact the coastal processes and the stability of the approach channel as well as to investigate the disposal of dredged spoil at the existing licensed offshore spoil site within Dublin Bay.

This programme included:

• Fieldwork comprising hydrographic surveys, geophysical surveys, sediment sampling and analysis and tidal current surveys;

• Review of previous maintenance dredging campaigns;

• Model simulations of the Spring and Neap tidal flow regime;

• Model simulations of the wave climate under a range of storm conditions;

• Model simulations of the sediment transport regime;



• Morphological simulations combining the results of tidal flow, storm waves and sediment transport;

• Model simulations of the dispersion, fate and settlement of dredge spoil dumped at the licensed offshore disposal site located close to the Burford Bank; and

• Model simulations of the dispersion, fate and settlement of dredge spoil released to the water environment during dredging operations; and

• Use of 3D modelling within the inner harbour to take into account the presence of salinity gradients within the water column (salt wedge) of the Liffey Channel.

The computational modelling was undertaken using RPS's in-house suite of MIKE coastal process modelling software developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI). The models were calibrated using the results of the fieldwork and other data held by RPS.

These models are currently being used to inform the Irish National Coastal Protection Strategy being developed by RPS on behalf of the OPW. The models are also currently being run on a 24/7 basis to support the OPW Storm Surge Forecasting Programme. The models provide predictions of extreme tide and storm surge levels along the eastern coastline of Ireland which are provided to the Local Authorities in order to provide early warning of potential coastal flood events.

The results of the model simulations show that:

• There will be no significant change to the tidal flow regime of Dublin Bay;

• There will be no significant change to the wave climate within Dublin Bay;

• There will be no perceptible change in the tidal velocity within the deepened, realigned navigation channel or in its power to cause scouring of the sea bed;

• The new navigation channel will require maintenance dredging of a similar magnitude to that required with the existing channel;

• There will be no significant change to the sediment transport regime within Dublin Bay, including the Tolka Estuary;

• The proposed offshore disposal site to the west of the Burford Bank is dispersive for the silt fractions within the dredged spoil material. The sand fractions within the dredged spoil will remain on the disposal site under normal tidal conditions. However under storm conditions the sand will gradually be assimilated into the overall sediment regime of Dublin Bay.

• The existing disposal site at the Burford Bank is the preferred disposal option as the fine sand material from the navigation channel will not be lost to the overall sediment supply to Dublin Bay;



• Model simulations of the dispersion, fate and deposition of sediment plumes arising from the dredging and disposal operations have been used to inform the environmental assessment of the natural environment (Chapter 5 and Habitats Directive Assessment, Natura Impact Statement) and the water environment (Chapter 10).

• Restricting the navigation channel dredging operations to the winter months (October to March) provides suitable mitigation to ensure that the dredging operations will have no significant impact on the qualifying interests of Natura 2000 sites.

• The dispersion, fate and deposition of sediment plumes arising from the dredging and disposal operations not expected to impact on other users of the waters within the River Liffey channel or Dublin Bay.

Residual Impacts

The comprehensive studies undertaken, as outlined above, show that ABR Project is not expected to have a significant detrimental impact on the coastal processes of Dublin Bay. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed works will have no residual impact.



10. WATER

This chapter of the EIS assesses the potential impact of the proposed development on water quality in the receiving environment. Existing water quality in the vicinity of the proposed development is established based on available water quality information, the likelihood for significant negative impacts on water quality is determined and mitigation measures to reduce impacts are proposed.

In addition, this chapter includes the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which was carried out for the proposed scheme.

10.1 RECEIVING WATER ENVIRONMENT

The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project including its capital dredging scheme will take place within the Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay. Figure 10.1 illustrates the receiving water environment. The works are located within two water bodies: ‘Liffey Estuary Lower’ transitional water body (water body code: EA_090_0300) and ‘Dublin Bay’ coastal water body (water body code: EA_090_0000). The ‘Liffey Estuary Upper’ water body (water body code EA_090_0400) is situated upstream of the proposed works. These water bodies are within Hydrometric Area No. 09 which is within the Eastern River Basin District (ERBD).

There are several rivers that discharge into the Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay, principally the Liffey itself and the Dodder, Camac & Poddle and Tolka. The Royal Canal and the Grand Canal also discharge to the Liffey. In addition several small streams flow from the surrounding areas directly into Dublin Bay.

Current Water Quality Status

A desk-based assessment of surface water quality in the vicinity of the proposed works was conducted. The sources of the water quality information include:

• Water Framework Directive water body status information arising from the Water Framework Directive monitoring programme (EPA, 2011);

• Water quality information outlined in the EPA’s most recent water quality report, Water Quality in Ireland 2007-2009 (EPA, 2010);

• Bathing water quality information outlined in the EPA’s most recent bathing water quality report, The Quality of Bathing Water in Ireland, An Overview for the Year 2012 (EPA, 2013); and

• Nutrient sensitive areas under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (SI No. 254 of 2001).

The ‘environmental status’ of marine waters will be established under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). However, the process of implementation of the directive is ongoing and environmental status has not been established to date.



Figure 10.1 Receiving water environment



10.1.1 Marine Strategy Framework Directive

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/EC) was formally adopted by the European Union in June 2008 and is transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Marine Strategy Framework) Regulations, 2011 (SI No. 249 of 2011). The overarching aim of the Directive is to protect Europe’s marine waters by applying an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities while enabling the sustainable use of the marine environment for present and future generations. The Directive establishes a legal framework for the development of marine strategies designed to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in the marine environment by the year 2020. The marine strategy involves defining GES, setting environmental targets and indicators, implementing monitoring programmes for ongoing assessment, and developing and implementing programmes of measures to achieve or maintain GES.

GES is defined as ‘the environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations’.

The assessment of GES is undertaken by reference to 11 qualitative descriptors which define overarching objectives in respect of key socio-economic or ecological aspects of the marine environment. These specifically require the consideration of the following:

• Biodiversity;

• Non-indigenous species;

• Exploited fish and shellfish;

• Food webs;

• Human-induced eutrophication;

• Sea-floor integrity;

• Alteration of hydrographical conditions;

• Contaminants in water and seafood;

• Marine litter; and

• Introduction of energy including underwater noise.

To date, an Initial Assessment (constituting a comprehensive review of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the marine area, as well as the human pressures acting upon it) has been undertaken (DEHLG 2013)). A comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators is under development. These will be used to demonstrate that GES has been achieved or is being maintained in accordance with the objectives of the MSFD. A monitoring programme will be established by the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government and the Marine Institute to identify measures which will need to be taken in order to achieve or maintain GES in marine waters. To date, GES has not been established for individual water bodies.



10.1.2 Water Framework Directive water body status

Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive), and transposing regulations, European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations, 2003 (S.I. No. 722 of 2003), as amended by the European Communities (Water Policy) (Amendment) Regulations, 2005, establish a legal framework for the protection, improvement and sustainable management of rivers, lakes, transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters (to a distance of one nautical mile) and groundwater.

The aim of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is to prevent deterioration of the existing status of waters and to ensure that all waters are classified as at least ‘good’ status (by 2015 in most cases, with all waters achieving good status by 2027 at the latest). A water body must achieve both good ‘ecological status’ and good ‘chemical status’ before it can be considered to be at good overall status.

Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) for classifying surface water status are established in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations, 2009 (SI No. 272 of 2009). These regulations set standards for biological quality elements, physico-chemical conditions supporting biological elements (including general conditions and specific pollutants), priority substances and priority hazardous substances.

The ‘ecological status’ of a water body is established according to compliance with the EQSs for biological quality elements, physico-chemical conditions supporting biological elements and relevant pollutants (Figure 10.2). The ‘chemical status’ of a water body is established according to compliance with the EQSs for priority substances and priority hazardous substances (SI No. 272 of 2009).

In order to establish the WFD status of water bodies, the EPA developed a new, WFD-compliant monitoring programme which began in 2006. Interim status classifications were published in 2009 based on monitoring information collected between 2006 and 2008. Final status classifications, based on the results of a complete monitoring cycle, i.e. 2007 to 2009, were reported in 2011 (EPA, 2011).

The WFD status of both the Liffey Estuary Lower and Dublin Bay water bodies was reported as ‘moderate’ in the final status classifications reported in 2011 (Figure 10.). Both water bodies are reported as having ‘moderate’ ecological status (both due to levels of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) and Dublin Bay due to biological quality elements). Both are described as being at ‘less than good’ status for morphology. Both water bodies were also reported as being at ‘moderate’ status in the interim status classifications reported in 2009.

The WFD status of the Liffey Estuary Upper water body, upstream of the ABR Project, was reported as ‘poor’ in the final status classifications reported in 2011 (Figure 10.). Its ecological status is ‘moderate’ (due to levels of dissolved oxygen (DO)), and it has ‘less than good’ status for morphology. It also has unsatisfactory chemical status due to a failure in relation to specific pollutants which resulted in the overall status of the water body being downgraded to ‘poor’. This water body status was reported as being at ‘moderate’ status in the interim status classifications reported in 2009.



Figure 10.2 Elements of WFD status



Figure 10.3 Water Framework Directive water body status



10.1.3 EPA Water Quality Report 2007-2009

The EPA Water Quality Report 2007-2009 was published in 2010 and presents a review of Irish ambient water quality for the years 2007 to 2009. The water quality information in relation to transitional and coastal waters outlined in the report was generated by the EPA as well as other organisations including the Marine Institute, Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI), the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA), the Irish Coast Guard and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII).

Trophic status assessment

The trophic status of transitional and coastal water bodies is assessed using the EPA’s Trophic Status Assessment Scheme (TSAS). This assessment is required for the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) and the EU Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). The scheme compares the compliance of individual parameters against a set of criteria indicative of trophic status (Table 10.1) and classifies water bodies as follows:

• Eutrophic water bodies are those in which criteria in each of the categories are breached i.e. where elevated nutrient concentrations, accelerated growth of plants and undesirable water quality disturbance occur simultaneously;

• Potentially Eutrophic water bodies are those in which criteria in two of the categories are breached and the third falls within 15 % of the relevant threshold value:

• Intermediate status water bodies are those which breach one or two of the criteria;

• Unpolluted water bodies are those which do not breach any of the criteria in any category.

Table 10.1 Parameters and criteria used in the Trophic Status Assessment Scheme (TSAS) for Irish marine water bodies (EPA, 2010)

The Liffey Estuary Lower and Dublin Bay water bodies are classified as ‘unpolluted’. These water bodies have shown incremental water quality improvements in recent years. Improvements are most likely the result of upgraded levels of waste water treatment in the area.

Liffey Estuary Upper is classified as ‘intermediate’.



Nitrogen and phosphorus levels

The concentration of both nitrogen, as dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), and phosphorus, as molybdate reactive phosphorus (MRP), is monitored in winter when levels are expected to be at their seasonal maximum due to the absence of any significant plant or algal growth. Levels of MRP are also monitored in summer to capture the potential effect of seasonal changes in river flow which in turn can result in higher phosphorus concentrations in some estuaries in summer. Each water body is assessed against salinity-related thresholds and environmental quality standards (SI No. 272 of 2009).

None of the water bodies in the vicinity of the ABR Project were reported in the EPA Water Quality Report 2007-2009 as having exceeded the assessment thresholds or EQSs.

Dissolved oxygen levels (DO) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

Dissolved oxygen levels in the Lower Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay water bodies are reported as satisfactory in the EPA Water Quality Report 2007-2009 and as capable of supporting nearly all forms of aquatic life. The level of oxygen demand in the water bodies is also reported as acceptable.

10.1.4 Bathing Water Quality 2007-2009

The legislation governing the quality of bathing waters for the 2012 season is EU Directive (76/160/EEC) concerning the quality of bathing waters, transposed into Irish law by the Quality of Bathing Waters Regulations, 1992 (SI No. 155 of 1992).

A new Directive on bathing water (2006/7/EC) came into force in March 2006, transposed into Irish law by the Bathing Water Quality Regulations, 2008 (SI No. 79 of 2008), and will repeal the 1976 Directive with effect from 31 December 2014. The 2006 Directive establishes a new classification system for bathing waters (based on microbiological standards) and requires that a classification of at least ‘sufficient’ be achieved by 2015 for all bathing waters. Standards for E.Coli and Intestinal Enterococci will be used to classify bathing waters into four categories (excellent, good, sufficient and poor). Classification will be based on assessment of water quality data over a rolling four year period using the data from 2011-2014 inclusive.

Transitional measures are in place in Ireland until the new regulations are fully implemented and these relate the new classification system to the current EU guide and mandatory standards specified in the 1976 Directive. Under this classification system ‘good’ water quality relates to compliance with both EU guide and mandatory values, ‘sufficient’ water quality relates to compliance with the mandatory values and ‘poor’ water quality reflects non-compliance with mandatory values. Bathing waters are not currently classified as ‘excellent’ as the 1976 Directive does not have bathing water standards that equate to this classification.

According to The Quality of Bathing Water in Ireland: An Overview for the year 2012 (EPA, 2013) all of the designated bathing areas in the immediate vicinity of the ABR Project (i.e. Dollymount Strand, Sandymount Strand, Merrion Strand and Seapoint) were compliant with bathing water quality standards established by the 1976 Directive (Figure 10.4 and Table 10.2).



Figure 10.4 Bathing water quality in the Dublin area 2012 (EPA, 2013)

Table 10.2 Compliance and water quality status of Dublin bathing waters (EPA, 2013)



10.1.5 Nutrient Sensitive Waters

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (SI No. 254 of 2001) (which transpose the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) into Irish law and update the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 (Urban Waste Water Treatment) Regulations, 1994 as amended in 1999) list nutrient sensitive waters in the Third Schedule.

The Liffey Estuary from Islandbridge weir to Poolbeg Lighthouse, including the River Tolka basin and South Bull Lagoon has been designated as a nutrient sensitive area (Figure 10.5).

Figure 10.5 Nutrient sensitive areas



10.1.6 Overall water body status

The available monitoring information for the water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the ABR Project (i.e. the Liffey Estuary Lower and Dublin Bay water bodies) indicates that:

• the overall WFD status of the water bodies is ‘moderate’ due to general components and morphology;

• tropic status is ‘unpolluted’;

• dissolved oxygen levels are satisfactory and capable of supporting nearly all forms of aquatic life;

• the level of oxygen demand in the water bodies is acceptable; and

• the designated bathing areas in the vicinity of the ABR Project are compliant with bathing water quality standards.

10.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Construction phase impacts

Temporary impacts on water quality have the potential to occur during the construction phase of the works. Pollution from mobilised suspended sediment is the prime concern.

• Increased suspended sediment levels due to dredging and deposition of dredge spoil;

• Sedimentation due to settling of suspended silt;

• The dispersal and fate of contaminated sediments; and

• Water quality impacts associated with works machinery, infrastructure and on-land operations (for example leakages /spillages of fuels, oils, other chemicals and waste water, controlled discharges under licence).

The construction works associated with the ABR Project focus on a combination of re-developing existing (and in some cases life-expired) infrastructure and using existing port lands at higher utilisation levels. The construction works will therefore have no significant impact on the existing morphology of the Liffey Estuary Lower water body.

The impact of the capital dredging scheme on the morphology of the Port’s navigation channel is assessed in Chapter 9 - Coastal Processes. The conclusions from this Chapter, based on the results from morphological simulations of the existing and proposed approach channel, are that the proposed channel will perform in a similar manner to the existing channel. The results also show that there will be no significant impact on the sediment transport regime within Dublin Bay and estuary as a result of the capital dredging scheme.



The capital dredging scheme will therefore not have a significant impact on the existing morphology of the Liffey Estuary Lower or Dublin Bay water bodies.

Operational phase impacts

Operational phase impacts are associated with normal port operations whilst dealing with continued growth. These include potential impacts from:

• Discharges from vessels using the port (ballast water, wastewater, oil spillages, fuel bunkering);

• Discharges from cargo handling (leakages from containers, bulk material spillages, losses from conveyor systems); and

• Discharges from cargo storage areas and onward transportation (losses from hoppers, flat bulk stores and HGVs).

Any of these activities have the potential to impact on water quality (and associated species and habitats) and therefore the activities associated with the construction and operation phases of the development require mitigation.

Impact matrix

The impacts described above are rated in according to their severity (major, moderate, minor and neutral) in the absence of any mitigation (Table 10.3).



Table 10.3 Impact matrix (in the absence of mitigation)

Navigation Channel

( Alexandra Basin West to

Bull Wall)

Alexandra Basin

Redevelopment

Navigation Channel

(Bull Wall to Dublin Bay

Buoy)

Construction phase Suspended sediments Major Major Moderate

Sedimentation Major Major Moderate

Pollution from contaminated sediment

Moderate Major Minor

Other water quality issues associated with construction works

Moderate Moderate Minor

Operational Phase Suspended sediments Neutral

(except for maintenance

dredging)

Neutral (except for

maintenance dredging)

Neutral (except for


Sedimentation Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for



Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for


Neutral


Neutral Neutral Neutral

Discharges from vessels using the port

Minor Minor Minor

Discharges from cargo handling Neutral Moderate Neutral

Discharges from cargo storage areas and onward transportation

Neutral Minor Neutral



10.3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Construction Phase Impacts

The ABR Project has been designed to minimize the impact on the receiving water environment.

The redevelopment of Alexandra Basin West will include construction of new quays and jetties and capital dredging to deepen the basin to achieve at depth of -10m CD . The dredging will involve removal of circa 0.47 million cubic metres of mainly silty material from Alexandra Basin West (further detail is contained in Chapter 4 – Project Description).

A suite of sampling and environmental testing has been undertaken to quantify and identify the nature of the contamination within the bed materials of Alexandra Basin West (further detail is contained in Chapter 12 – Geology and Soils). This material is unsuitable for disposal at sea.

Dredging operations have been designed to minimise the disturbance and escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water column. A floating pontoon with an excavator mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging will be used. A silt curtain will also be placed around the dredger to contain the marine sediments. This method of dredging will serve to minimize the spread of suspended contaminated sediments beyond the dredge foot print.

The dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin West will be transported by barge to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53. It will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material to allow its re-use as fill material. In order to minimise the stockpiling of dredged material, the rate of dredging will be determined by the rate of treatment of the dredged material (further detail of the treatment process is contained in Chapter 11 – Geology and Soils).

Capital dredging of the Port’s navigation channel is required to achieve a design depth of -10m CD. The sediment quality of this material has been tested and found to be suitable for disposal at sea (subject to the granting of a Dumping at Sea Permit by the EPA).

Model simulations were undertaken to determine the impact of increased suspended sediment levels due to dredging and deposition of the dredge spoil and sedimentation due to the settling of the sediments on the seabed (further detail is contained in Chapter 9 – Coastal Processes).

The risk of water quality impacts associated with works machinery, infrastructure and on-land operations (for example leakages /spillages of fuels, oils, other chemicals and waste water) can be controlled through good site management and the adherence to codes and practices which limit the risk to within acceptable levels. These are described in Section 10.4 Mitigation Measures.


The new port facilities, when complete, will be subject to the Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan. Dublin Port is accredited to ISO 14001 to ensure that all employees undertake their work with due consideration for the environment and that guidance is given to tenants to promote the principles of sustainability.



Dublin Port has been designated an ‘Ecoport’ at European level, in relation to its environmental management system. Dublin Port Company also maintains and operates an emergency management plan and has the emergency management structures and arrangements in place which are compatible with the requirements of the 2006 Framework for Major Emergency Management. These include procedures for dealing with, amongst others:

• A major oil spill from a vessel, jetty or on land including storage areas; • A major spill of hazardous material from a vessel, jetty or on land including storage

areas; and

• Vehicle accidents involving hazardous material. Training of staff and exercises are undertaken in line with best practice. Dublin Port’s Environmental Management Plan does not permit any discharges from vessels using the port, or travelling through Dublin Bay, to the receiving waters.


Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures include adherence to the construction techniques and timing of works (outlined in this Environmental Impact Statement) which form an integral part of the engineering design and which have been developed to minimize the impact of the project on the receiving water environment.

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared to capture all mitigation measures within this Environmental Impact Statement together with any conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála and to provide additional detail in order to develop a practical programme of measures for the Contractor. The CEMP will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction stage. The CEMP will include mitigation measures to safeguard the receiving waters including:

(i) Waste Management Plan (ii) Contamination Strategy (iii) Water Quality Management Plan (iv) Establishment of lines of communication, reporting and actions

The mitigation measures will include the requirements for best practice and adherence to relevant Irish guidelines, or international guidelines where these are not available:

• Good practice guidelines on the control of water pollution from construction sites developed by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA, 2001);

• Pollution prevention guidelines in relation to a variety of activities developed by the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environmental Agency (SEPA) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA);



• Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG6);

• Fisheries Guidelines for Local Authority Works. Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources, Dublin, (Anonymous, 1998);

• Guidelines on protection of fisheries habitats during construction projects (Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, 2006);

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) for domestic waste discharges to the environment;

• International Marine Organisation guidelines; and

• Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Handling of Hazardous Materials.

The preparation of the CEMP associated with the receiving waters will require continual engagement with a range of interested parties/stakeholders including Dublin City Council, EPA, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Dublin Port tenants and local community groups.

A Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme will also be prepared to provide additional safeguards to the receiving environment during the construction phase of the works. The monitoring programme will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction stage.

The design of the Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme will include the following elements related to the receiving waters:

(i) An assessment using 3-D hydrodynamic computational modelling and water quality modelling to design the placement of a number of water quality monitoring buoys and telemetry based warning systems.

(ii) The establishment of water quality trigger levels and corresponding actions

(including the necessity to temporarily cease construction operations) to safeguard sensitive conservation sites (SPA and SAC) and the operations of other users of the receiving waters (e.g. Power Stations)

The preparation of the Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme will require continual engagement with a range of interested parties/stakeholders including Dublin City Council, EPA, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Dublin Port tenants, ESB and local community groups.

Operational Phase Mitigation Measures

The new port facilities, when complete, will be subject to the Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan.

In particularly, the following shall be adhered to with respect to vessels at berth or travelling through Dublin Bay:



• No waste should be disposed of at sea;

• Ballast water should be treated in accordance with MARPOL standards;

• Ballast tanks should be separate from hydrocarbon storage areas and no potentially contaminated streams should be diverted to the ballast tanks;

• De-ballasting should be undertaken offshore in accordance with IMO guidelines;

• Hazardous wastes should be stored in sealed, labelled drums in locked chemical cabinets;

• Vessels should be equipped with oil-water separation systems in accordance with MARPOL requirements;

• Spills on deck should be contained and controlled using absorbing materials;

• Vessels without sewage treatment systems should have suitable holding tanks and will bring waste onshore for treatment by licensed contractors;

• All chemicals used on-board should be handled in compliance with COSHH instructions on handling hazardous materials;

• Chemicals should be stored appropriately in suitably bunded areas and with material safety data sheets; and

• All waste discharges should be monitored and recorded as per vessel procedures.

Residual Impacts

Provided appropriate mitigations measures are fully implemented during the construction and operational phases, the impact of the proposed development on the water quality in the area will be neutral to minor as indicated in Table 10.4.

The ABR Project is therefore not expected to have a significant detrimental impact on the water quality of the receiving waters or make a significant change to the existing morphology. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed works are compliant with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive.



Table 10.4 Residual Impacts (with mitigation)

Navigation Channel


Bull Wall)

Alexandra Basin

Redevelopment

Navigation Channel


Buoy)

Construction phase Suspended sediments Minor Minor Minor

Sedimentation `Minor Minor Minor


Minor Minor Minor


Minor Minor Minor



dredging)

Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for




Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for



Neutral

Neutral (except for


Neutral



Discharges from vessels using the port


Discharges from cargo handling Neutral Minor Neutral





10.5 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) of the ABR Project was undertaken with the following two objectives:

To assess the flood risk at the site of the proposed development; and

To assess the change in flood risk to the neighbouring areas as a result of the development including Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays.

The FRA was undertaken in accordance with The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

The FRA requires information on proposed changes to the quay heights and dredged depths together with extreme storm events from potential sources of flooding.

10.5.1 Proposed changes to quay heights and dredged depths

The levels of the existing quays at Alexandra Basin West vary between 3.2m and 4.0m Ordnance Datum (OD) Malin (5.7m and 6.5m Chart Datum (CD)).

The new quay deck levels have been designed to be raised but also to enable tie into the existing levels of the quay structures and hardstanding areas to avoid any negative impact on existing operations. The design quay levels at Alexandra Basin West will vary between 3.9m and 4.2m OD (6.4m and 6.7m CD).

The levels of the existing quays at Berth 52-53 (Terminal 5) vary between 3.0m and 3.4m OD Malin (5.51m and 5.91m CD).

The existing basin at Berth 52/53 will be infilled and tied into the adjacent lands for open storage and marshalling. A new river-side berth will also be developed. The redevelopment will raise the surface levels at the berth and the adjacent area to 4.6m OD (7.1m CD).

The proposed capital dredging scheme will deepen the berths within Alexander Basin West and the approach channel to Dublin Port to -10.0m CD.

10.5.2 Evaluation of Potential Sources of Flooding

Coastal Flood Risk

Coastal flooding can occur from a combination of high tidal levels and storm surges generated during extreme storm events.

Model simulations were used to derive extreme tidal water levels (high tides and storm surges) within Dublin Bay and adjacent to Dublin Port.

This was achieved through using a tidal and storm surge model - a flexible mesh 2D hydrodynamic software package called DHI MIKE 21 FMHD. The extent of the model is shown



in Figure 10.6. The model uses 15 tidal harmonics from a global tidal model on its open boundaries and the wind and pressure field is defined using data from the ERA40 re-analysis model and the most current operational analysis and forecast model operated by the European Centre of Medium Range Weather Forecast.

Figure 10.6 Extent of Irish Tidal and Storm Surge Model

The model was calibrated against a wide range of tidal measurements from various locations around Ireland and along the relevant UK coast. The model is currently being used to inform the Irish National Coastal Protection Strategy being developed by RPS on behalf of the OPW. The model is also currently being run on a 24/7 basis to support the OPW Storm Surge Forecasting Programme. The model provides predictions of extreme tide and storm surge levels along the eastern coastline of Ireland which are provided to the Local Authorities in order to provide early warning of potential coastal flood events.

The model was used to predict extreme tidal levels adjacent to Dublin Port and within the Tolka estuary. The results are presented in Table 10.5.

BathymetryAbove -5

-15 - -5-25 - -15-40 - -25-55 - -40-70 - -55

-130 - -70-190 - -130-250 - -190-500 - -250-750 - -500

-1000 - -750-2000 - -1000-3000 - -2000-4000 - -3000Below -4000Undefined Value

-16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60



Table 10.5 Predicted Tidal Flood Levels (Present Day)

Annual Exceedance

Probability(AEP)

Return Period Predicted Water Level

Present Day metre

Ordnance Datum

Predicted Water Level

Present Day metre

Chart Datum 50% 2 2.46 4.97 20% 5 2.58 5.09 10% 10 2.67 5.18 5% 20 2.76 5.27 2% 50 2.88 5.39 1% 100 2.97 5.48

0.5% 200 3.07 5.58 0.1% 1000 3.28 5.79

Guidance for the application of climate change in terms of sea level rise is provided in ‘Assessment of Future Scenarios for Flood Risk Management’ (OPW, 2009). This recommends that two potential future scenarios are considered: Mid Range Future Scenario (MRFS) which represents a ‘likely’ future scenario and High End Future Scenario (HEFS) which represents a more extreme potential future scenario. It is recommended that a mid-range future scenario of 500mm rise in sea level is considered and a 1000mm increase in sea level is considered for the high end future scenario. The results of adding these sea level rises are presented in Table 10.6. In considering the future risk from coastal flooding, the Mid Range Future Scenario (MRFS) should be adopted. Table 10.6a Predicted Tidal Flood Levels (Year 2100) – Ordnance Datum

Annual Exceedance Probability

(AEP)

Return Period


Present Day (m OD)

MRFS Predicted Water Level Year 2100 (m OD)

HEFS Predicted Water Level Year 2100 (m OD)

50% 2 2.46 2.96 3.46 20% 5 2.58 3.08 3.58 10% 10 2.67 3.17 3.67 5% 20 2.76 3.26 3.76 2% 50 2.88 3.38 3.88 1% 100 2.97 3.47 3.97

0.5% 200 3.07 3.57 4.07 0.1% 1000 3.28 3.78 4.28



Table 10.6b Predicted Tidal Flood Levels (Year 2100) – Chart Datum

Annual Exceedance Probability

(AEP)

Return Period


Present Day (m CD)

MRFS Predicted Water Level Year 2100

(m CD)

HEFS Predicted Water Level Year 2100

(m CD) 50% 2 4.97 5.47 5.97 20% 5 5.09 5.59 6.09 10% 10 5.18 5.68 6.18 5% 20 5.27 5.77 6.27 2% 50 5.39 5.89 6.39 1% 100 5.48 5.98 6.48

0.5% 200 5.58 6.08 6.58 0.1% 1000 5.79 6.29 6.79

Flood zones are classified under the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (2009) as follows:

• Flood Zone A: areas where the probability of flooding from the sea is highest (0.5%).

Based on the present day predicted tidal flood levels, this would equate to a level of 3.07m

OD (5.58m CD);

• Flood Zone B: areas where the probability of flooding from the sea is moderate (between

0.1% and 0.5%). Based on the present day predicted tidal flood levels, this would equate

to levels between 3.07 and 3.28m OD (5.58 and 5.79m CD);

• Flood Zone C: Areas where the probability of flooding from the sea is low (less than

0.1%). Based on the present day predicted tidal flood levels, this would equate to levels

above 3.28m OD (5.79m CD).

Topographical survey data was used to define the extent of tidal flooding predicted during extreme coastal storm events the vicinity of the two redevelopment locations.

Predicted coastal flooding extents at Alexandra Basin West are shown in Figure 10.7. This figure shows that:

Flood Zone A (area hatched in Red) is limited to areas adjacent to the existing quays, particularly around Graving Dock #2 where the level of the existing quays are lower compared to the quays within the main Alexander Basin.

Flood Zone B (area hatched in Blue) extends further to the hardstandings, again particularly around Graving Dock #2.

Flood Zone C (area not hatched) shows that Port infrastructure outside the immediate working quay area has a low probability of flooding from the sea.



Predicted coastal flooding extents at Berths 52/53 show a similar impact to that of the Alexandra Basin West shown in Figure 10.8. This figure shows that:

Flood Zone A (area hatched in Red) is limited to areas adjacent to the existing quays, extending to localised areas of hardstanding within the immediate vicinity of the quays

Flood Zone B (area hatched in Blue) extends further to the hardstandings

Flood Zone C (area not hatched) shows that Port infrastructure outside the immediate working quay area has a low probability of flooding from the sea.

Figure 10.7 Alexandra Basin West (existing) – Predicted impact of Coastal Flooding



Figure 10.8 Berth 52/53 (existing) – Predicted impact of Coastal Flooding

Fluvial Flood Risk

Fluvial Flooding can occur during extreme river flow events, particularly when these events coincide with high Spring Tides and extreme meteorological conditions. Dublin Port lies adjacent to the tidal River Liffey estuary.

Extreme fluvial events within the River Liffey and its tributaries have been recently simulated by RPS using fluvial models developed on behalf of the OPW to support the development of a Flood Risk Management Plan for Dublin in accordance to the requirements of the EU Floods Directive (Eastern Catchment Flood Risk and Management (CFRAM) Project).

These fluvial simulations have shown that extreme flood events at the location of Dublin Port are dominated by coastal flooding and that extreme fluvial events do not further increase the extreme levels predicted during extreme tidal and storm surge events.

Pluvial Flood Risk

Pluvial Flooding can occur from surface water flows generated during extreme rainfall events at the site, coupled with overflows from storm water and foul (combined sewage and storm water) pipe networks.



Overland Flow

Generally, for a site to be considered at risk from overland flow, it requires steep gradients either within or above the site and a large contributing catchment area. In the case of Dublin Port, the application site and the surrounding land are generally flat and the contributing catchment area is relatively small. The risk of significant flooding from overland flow would therefore be considered low. In addition the type of proposed development, comprising quay walls and hardstanding areas would not be overly susceptible to this type of flooding.

Storm Water Drainage

The ABR Project will not significantly increase the load on the Port’s existing storm drainage network. The increased risk of flooding from this source is therefore considered to be low.

Foul drainage

No additional foul drainage will be required for the development and therefore there is no additional risk of flooding from this source.

10.5.3 Compliance with the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009)

The evaluation of potential sources of flooding, outlined above, concludes that the overwhelming flood risk to the site comes from coastal flooding.

At Alexandra Basin West, the application site is mostly contained within Flood Zone C. This zone is considered to be at low probability of flooding and The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009) states that development in this zone is appropriate from a flood risk perspective. Areas within the site which are within Zones A and B will comprise hard standings associated with cargo handling and temporary storage areas. Therefore, in line with the sequential approach set out in guidelines, a Justification test is not required for this development (Table 3.2 of guidelines).

At Berth 52-53, the application site is mostly contained within Flood Zone B. This zone is considered to be at moderate probability of flooding. The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009) states that “less vulnerable development such as ….water-compatible development might be considered appropriate in this zone”. Table 3.1 of the guidelines lists ‘Docks, marinas and wharves’ as water-compatible developments. Therefore, in line with the sequential approach set out in guidelines, a Justification test is not required for this development (Table 3.2 of guidelines).

It can therefore be concluded that the ABR Project complies with the requirements of the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).



10.5.4 Flood Risk Mitigation Measures

Ideally, any development should include mitigation measures to minimise the risk of flooding in the present day scenario but also to future proof the development against climate change.

In this case, it would be appropriate to consider designing developments within the Port to cater for a present day 1:200 year (0.5% AEP) coastal flood event of 3.07m OD (5.58m CD) and, where appropriate, a 1:200 year predicted for 2100 (0.5% AEP event in 2100) which equates to a level of 3.57m OD (6.08m CD) (see Table 10.6) for the Mid Range Future Scenario (MRFS).


The levels of the existing quays at Alexandra Basin West vary between 3.2 and 4.0m OD (5.71m and 6.51m CD). The new quay deck levels have been designed to tie into the existing levels of the quay structures and hardstanding areas to avoid any negative impact on existing operations. The design quay levels at Alexandra Basin West will vary between 3.9m and 4.2m OD (6.4m and 6.7m CD).

This will change the site from Flood Zone A and B to Flood Zone C (Low Risk). The new level of this area is also above the moderate (MRFS) future scenario 2100 predicted level (3.57m OD or 6.08m CD) and therefore it will also be future proofed for predicted climate change.

Berth 52/53

The existing basin at Berth 52/53 will be infilled and tied into the adjacent lands for open storage and marshalling. A new river-side berth will also be developed. The redevelopment will raise the surface levels at the berth and the adjacent area to 4.6m OD (7.11m CD). This will change the site from Flood Zone A and B to Flood Zone C (Low Risk). The new level of this area is well above even the high end future scenario 2100 predicted level (4.07m OD or 6.58m CD) and therefore it will also be future proofed for predicted climate change.

10.5.5 Change of Flood Risk to neighbouring areas - water levels

The capital dredging scheme which forms an integral part of the planning application has been assessed to determine if it has the potential to change the tidal flow within the River Liffey estuary and thereby change the flood risk associated with neighbouring areas of Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays. These areas are known to be susceptible to frequent flooding.

In order to evaluate the impact of the dredging scheme on water level, two scenarios were modelled for both pre- and post-dredging as follows:

• 1:200 year tidal storm surge event in combination with 1:2 year flow event in the Liffey, Tolka and Dodder Rivers; and

• 1:100 year flow event in the Liffey, Tolka and Dodder Rivers in combination with a high spring tide.



First Scenario: 1:200 year tidal storm surge event in combination with 1:2 year flow event in the Liffey, Tolka and Dodder Rivers

In this scenario a 1:200 year tidal storm surge event in combination with 1:2 year flow event in the Liffey, Tolka and Dodder Rivers was simulated. A worst case scenario was modelled whereby the peak tide and storm surge was assumed to occur at the same time as the peak river flows enter the estuary.

The results of modelling this scenario for both the pre- and post-dredging scheme are presented in Figures 10.9 and 10.10.

Figure 10.9 Tidal curve in Dublin Port for 1 in 200 year return period storm surge for existing harbour channel (Blue) and proposed harbour channel (Red). (the blue line lies under the red line where they are co-incident)

It will be seen from Figure 10.9 that the tidal curves in Dublin Port during the 1 in 200 year storm surge simulations are virtually the same for the existing channel and for the proposed new deepened channel to -10m CD. The difference between the top water levels is only 1mm.

The impact of the proposed dredging on extreme water levels around the Dublin Bay area has been examined by using difference plots of the surface elevations at the time of high water. The difference plot for the 1 in 200 year storm surge event is shown in Figure 10.10. It will be seen that the effects of the dredged channel on the extreme water levels around the Dublin Bay area is less than 2mm which is insignificant.



Figure 10.10 Tidal level difference, proposed channel minus existing channel, at time of peak water level during 1 in 200 year return period storm surge

The results of the model simulations show that the dredging scheme causes no change to water levels either in Alexandra Basin West or the neighbouring areas of Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays.



Second Scenario: 1:100 year flow event in the Liffey, Tolka and Dodder Rivers in combination with a high spring tide

In this scenario 1:100 year flow event in the Liffey, Tolka and Dodder Rivers in combination with a high spring tide was simulated. A worst case scenario was again modelled whereby the peak tide and storm surge was assumed to occur at the same time as the peak river flows entering the estuary.

The results of modelling this scenario for both the pre- and post-dredging scheme are presented in Figures 10.11 and 10.12.

Figure 10.11 Tidal curve in Dublin Port for 1 in 100 year return period river flows for existing harbour channel (Blue)and proposed harbour channel(Red) (the blue line lies under the red line where they are co-incident)

It will be seen from Figure 10.11 that the tidal curves in Dublin Port during the 1 in 100 year river flow simulations are virtually the same for the existing channel and for the proposed new deepened channel to -10m CD. The difference between the top water levels is only 1mm. which is not significant.

The impact of the proposed dredging on the water levels around the Dublin Bay area during high river flows has been examined by using difference plots of the surface elevations at the time of high water. The difference plot for the 1 in 100 year river flow event is shown in Figure 10.12. It will be seen that the effects of the dredged channel on the water levels around the Dublin Bay area is less than 2mm which is insignificant.



Figure 10.12 Tidal level difference, proposed channel minus existing channel, at time of high water level during 1 in 100 year return period river flows

The results of the model simulations show that the dredging scheme causes a very small decrease in water levels in Dublin Port area during high river flow events since the flood waters are more easily drained within the deepened channel. This beneficial impact is however not considered to be significant.

10.5.6 Change of Flood Risk to neighbouring areas- wave heights

In addition to considering any increase in water level as a result of the capital dredging scheme, RPS also undertook modelling to determine any increase in wave height pre- and post-dredging. The simulations have been run for a series of offshore wave conditions and extreme water levels taken from the 1 in 200 year joint probability analysis undertaken as part



of the Eastern CFRAM study. The offshore wave climate for an extreme south easterly storm is the most arduous and has been used in the modelling.

The offshore storm wave climate and water levels used in the modelling are shown in Table 10.7.

Table 10.7 Extreme 1 in 200 year offshore storm wave climate and water levels

Wave Height (m)

Spectral Peak Wave period (s)

Water Level (m OD)

Water Level (m CD)

8.325 12.0 2.10 4.61

7.470 11.5 2.32 4.83

6.112 10.4 2.53 5.04

4.943 9.3 2.71 5.22

3.585 8.0 2.92 5.43

3.000 7.3 3.05 5.56

Figure 10.13 shows the plot of wave height differences (proposed minus existing channel) for the worst case scenario.

Figure 10.13 Wave height difference plot (proposed minus existing)



As this figure shows, there is a small increase in wave height to the south of the North Bull bridge in the Clontarf area of Dublin. This potential impact was investigated in detail using the Spectral Wave model. This model was chosen in preference to the Boussinesq wave harbour disturbance model as the Alexander Basin West project does not include any changes to the boundary of the Tolka Estuary which would affect wave reflections and, more importantly, the Boussinesq wave model does not include wind wave generation within the model area which is important for the wave climate along the Clontarf frontage.

Figures 10.14 to 10.19 show plots of wave height differences (proposed minus existing channel) for a range of 1 in 200 year storms from the south east for water levels varying from 2.10 to 3.05m OD (4.61 to 5.56m CD).

Figure 10.14 Wave height difference plot (proposed minus existing) for water level 2.10m OD (4.61m CD)










For the existing situation (pre-dredging) extreme south easterly storm waves generated during a 1in 200 year event with a wave period of 8 seconds penetrate furthest into the Tolka estuary when the water level is expected to be 2.92m OD (5.43m CD) as shown in Figure 10.18.

Storm waves reaching the sea defences at Clontarf will have a wave height of circa 0.60m as they approach a short section of the Clontarf sea frontage.

This area of Clontarf is protected by a seawall with a top level of approximately 3.2m OD (5.71m CD). The level drops to a footpath behind the wall and then a grassed area slopes up for a length of approximately 45m to a level of approximately 3.4m OD (5.91m CD) at a cycle path.

The extreme water level will be lower than the level of the seawall by 0.28m however wave overtopping of the seawall will occur. When striking the sea wall, the wave energy will largely be dissipated and the overtopping which will occur will only run up the grassed area for a short distance. No properties or infrastructure are at risk of flooding in this area from wave overtopping during this extreme storm event.

The post dredging situation will increase the height of the waves approaching the sea defences by 0.03m. This increase in wave height will have no perceptible impact in terms of the volume of water breaching the sea defences from overtopping waves.

Consequently, there is no net increase to the existing flood risk to this area of Clontarf as a consequence of the ABR Project.

In the climate change scenario for the year 2100 an increase in water level of 0.5m is expected for the Mid Range Future Scenario (MRFS) irrespective of the ABR Project. Should this scenario occur, the flood risk to this area of Dublin from more frequent events will be very severe highlighting the need for a flood defence scheme.

OPW are currently re-evaluating the options for a flood defence scheme at Clontarf.



10.5.7 CONCLUSION

An assessment of the flood risk to the proposed development has determined that the predominant source of flood risk emanates from coastal flooding.

The assessment concluded that the proposed port redevelopment complies with the requirements of the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

Model simulations have been undertaken to determine any change to the flood risk associated with neighbouring areas of Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays, particularly as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme.

The results of the model simulations have shown that the proposed works are not expected to increase the flood risk to any of these areas.



11. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

This Chapter of the EIS identifies, describes and assesses the impact of the proposed development on soils, geology and hydrogeology including the treatment of contaminated marine sediments within Alexander Basin West.

The geological and hydrogeological regime has been established from the results of ground investigations, a review of mapping records and walkover surveys of the site. Marine sediment quality has been established through a comprehensive sampling and analysis programme developed through consultation with the Marine Institute.

11.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Introduction In the absence of a formal methodology for assessing the extent and degree of impact that the ABR Project may have on geology and hydrogeology, the approach has been based on the document produced by the Institute of Geologists of Ireland, “Geology in Environmental Impact Statements – a guide”, September 2002. This document outlines the likely impacts and potential mitigation measures for geological issues by topic, although no importance criteria are given by which the impact can be graded.

Desk Study

A geological desk study was carried out for the development using the following sources of information:

• Ordnance Survey of Ireland, Discovery Series,

• Ordnance Survey of Ireland online historical maps and aerial photographs,

• Environmental Protection Agency online mapping www.epa.ie,

• Geological Survey of Ireland 1:100,000 scale bedrock series geology map Sheet 16 Geology of Kildare-Wicklow, 1994.

• Geological Survey of Ireland online mapping public datasets viewer http://www.gsi.ie/Mapping.htm,

• IGSL, Ground Investigation Report, Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, 2014.

• Glover Site Investigations Ltd., Dublin Port Borehole and CPT Contract, Alexandra Quay East. Report No. 06-221-AQ, 2006.



11.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

11.2.1 Solid Geology

Regional Bedrock Geology

The solid (bedrock) geology of the region (Figure 11.1) comprises a sequence of sedimentary rocks that are assigned to the Calp Formation of the Carboniferous era. These Lower Carboniferous strata range in age from Chadian to Brigantian. The Carboniferous sequence indicated by the geological map comprises dark grey fine grained limestones with interbedded, black, poorly fossiliferous shales. Limestone bed thickness, grain size, colour and proportion of shale vary widely whilst Chert is locally common. These rocks were originally deposited as sediments in a marine basin that opened during continental rifting. To the south of Dublin is located the Leinster Granite batholiths which stretches from Dun Laoghaire to New Ross. It consists of five, generally north northeast-trending plutons, which are individually aligned within the northeast-trending regional foliation in the lower Palaeozoic host rocks. The granite was intruded during the Caledonian deformation. The granites mainly form upland regions, however they are poorly exposed due to rounded contours with a blanket of peat.

Figure 11.1 Geology in and around Dublin Port



Local Bedrock Geology

An investigation carried out by Glover Site Investigations Ltd. in 2006 within the adjacent Alexandra Quay East indicated that the bedrock underlying the local area comprised moderately strong to strong, slightly laminated, grey to dark grey, fine to medium grained LIMESTONE with layers of Shale and occasional calcite veining.

Dublin Port is located entirely on made ground (fill deposits). Therefore there are no natural rock outcrops present on the site.

11.2.2 Drift Geology and Recent Deposits

Drift is a general term applied to all mineral material (clay, sand, silt, boulders) transported by a glacier and deposited directly by or from the ice, or by running water emanating from the glacier. It generally applies to Pleistocene glacial deposits. The drift geology of the area principally reflects the depositional process of the last glaciation when an extensive ice sheet that extended into the Irish Sea covered the region. Typically during the ice advance boulder clays were deposited sub-glacially as lodgement till over the eroded rock head surface, whilst moraine deposits were laid down at the glacier margins. Subsequently, with the progressive retreat of the ice sheet from the region, fluvio-glacial deposits (sand, gravel and silt) were laid down by melt waters discharging from the front of the glacier. Recent deposition prior to reclamation of the site principally reflects marine erosional and depositional processes, which have modified the glacial deposits. 11.2.3 Site Specific Geology

A site investigation was carried out by IGSL Ltd between December 2013 and February 2014. The investigation comprised 12 Boreholes advanced by cable percussion with follow on rotary drilling. Boreholes were advanced to a maximum depth of 25.0m below ground level (bgl).

Made Ground (Fill Deposits)

Made Ground deposits were encountered from 0.15m bgl to a maximum depth of 10.6m bgl. The Made Ground deposits comprised the following;

• Grey, sandy, gravelly fill with steel/pipe pieces, coal, timber, cobbles and boulders;

• GRAVEL with cobbles and shells;

• Coarse GRAVEL fill with cobbles and boulders;

• Clay, gravel, sand, large cobbles, red and yellow brick fragments, timber, steel, glass and plastic;

• Rubble fill with glass and plastic;

• Black, clayey, fill with metal, timber and glass; and

• Sandy, gravelly fill with shell fragments, cobbles and boulders.



Recent Deposits (Estuarine)

The recent estuarine deposits were generally encountered below the Made Ground deposits and comprised; stiff, grey, black sandy SILT, soft to firm, black sandy SILT and stiff, brown, slightly gravelly, sandy SILT. This horizon ranged in thickness from 0.5m to 4.9m in thickness.

Glacial Deposits

The glacial deposits were generally encountered as fluvio-glacial sands and gravels with Clay at greater depth. The sands were encountered as; Grey silty SAND with cobbles, Loose brown/grey SAND, Medium dense, grey/brown silty SAND, Dense black, slight gravelly SAND with cobbles and Medium dense, grey SAND with cobbles. The sand horizons ranged in thickness from 0.4m to 5.5m in thickness.

The gravel was encountered as; Dense, grey, slightly sandy GRAVEL with cobbles, Dense, grey angular GRAVEL, Dense, fine to coarse, grey, slightly clayey GRAVEL, Dense, fine to coarse, sandy, grey/brown GRAVEL with cobbles and occasional boulders and Medium dense, grey, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles and boulders. The gravel horizons ranged in thickness from 0.7m to 8.8m in thickness.

Possible Boulder Clay was encountered within one borehole only and comprised; hard, black, sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional cobbles. The clay layer was encountered from 19.50m bgl until the end of the borehole at 24.80m bgl and is unproven beyond this depth.

Bedrock

Ground investigations undertaken in Alexander Basin East have shown that the Limestone rock head level in the vicinity of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment are at circa -35m Chart Datum (CD), 25m below the design dredge level of -10m CD.

11.2.3 Hydrogeology

Hydrogeology is the study of groundwater, including its origin, occurrence, movement and quality. The hydrogeology of the area has been described by the Geological Survey of Ireland as complex and very variable. The Limestone bedrock is generally considered to be indurated and hence dominated by fissure permeability (e.g. joints and faults). Such permeability is likely to be low except where coarse, clean Limestones where present, have been karstified, dolomitised or are highly fractured. The Quaternary drift is considered the principal medium for groundwater movement in the area. The infiltration capacity of the clay deposits would be limited due to their low permeability and hence groundwater movement is likely to be confined to the fluvio-glacial sand and gravel deposits that overlie the clays. The Lower Carboniferous rocks that underlie the region have been classified by the Geological Survey of Ireland as “Locally Important Aquifer, bedrock which is moderately productive only in local zones”. These locally productive zones are due to the presence of more permeable strata that are encountered in different parts of the outcrop area due to substantial faults, fractures or fissures. The limited groundwater movement within the rock tends to be restricted to the weathered horizons or to non-extensive fractured zones. These zones tend to have a limited hydraulic continuity, low storage capacity and low potential yield.



The potential importance of the Quaternary drift deposits as a groundwater resource is a function of their permeability, thickness and extent. The low permeable fine grained glacial clays represent aquitards that limit infiltration and restrict recharge to bedrock aquifers when sufficiently thick. The overlying fluvio-glacial sand and gravel deposits represent material with a significantly higher permeability. Consequently these deposits have a high potential recharge and storage capacity. It is generally expected that groundwater levels beneath the site will remain close to sea level and may exhibit tidal variation. During the site investigation, groundwater was encountered during drilling at depths from 3.0m bgl to 5.5m bgl within the Made Ground, Sand and Gravel deposits. Groundwater at the site is expected to be brackish / saline and unsuitable for potable supply.

11.2.4 Sediments

Sedimentation in the marine environment is a natural phenomenon, occurring by rivers eroding materials in upstream areas and settling suspended matter when the current becomes slower, runoff by lowland rivers or by currents coming from the sea transporting and settling material in protected areas such as ports and harbours.

Marine sediments are not, in themselves polluting substances. However, they can be a sink for contaminants that end up in our harbours and ports, mainly from anthropogenic sources such as sewage discharges, marine traffic, industrial wastewater and historically poor environmental management. Contaminants in sediments can act as a source of long-term environmental pollution. Certain substances can bioaccumulate in benthic organisms resulting in biomagnification at higher levels in the food chain. Some widespread pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) are no longer in use but due to their persistence they can still be detected in marine sediments (Cronin, McGovern et al, 2006). It is for this reason that sediments need to be tested prior to dredging so as to determine if any contaminants are present and if so, how they can be dealt with in the arising dredged spoil.

Sediment Quality

The sediment quality and particle size analysis of the marine sediments within Alexandra Basin West and the Navigation Channel from the East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy was established through a comprehensive sampling and analysis programme. The Marine Institute advised on the location of the samples and the range of contaminants to be analysed. The sampling programme was undertaken in August 2013 by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd. The sediment quality analysis was undertaken by the National laboratory Services, Environment Agency for England and Wales. This laboratory is fully accredited for the analysis of the suite of contaminants specified by the Marine Institute.

The location of samples taken within Alexandra Basin West is shown in Figure 11.2 and the location of samples taken in the Navigation Channel is shown in Figures 11.3 and 11.4. The location of samples taken for particle size analysis only are shown on Figure 11.5. The full results of the sampling programme are presented in Appendix 11.



Figure 11.2 Location of samples taken for sediment quality analysis – Alexander Basin West



Figure 11.3 Location of samples taken for sediment quality analysis – Navigation Channel



Figure 11.4 Location of samples taken for sediment quality analysis – Navigation Channel



Figure 11.5 Location of Samples taken for Particle Size Analysis



The results of the analysis were compared against Marine Institute Guidelines for the Assessment of Dredge Material for Disposal in Irish Waters (Table 11.1) to assess their suitability for disposal at sea. The results were also sent to the Marine Institute for their independent assessment.

Table 11.1 Guideline values for sediment quality levels

Parameter Unit (dry wt)

Lower Level Guideline

Upper Level Guideline

Arsenic mg/kg 9 70 Cadmium mg/kg 0.7 4.2 Chromium mg/kg 120 370 Copper mg/kg 40 110 Lead mg/kg 60 218 Mercury mg/kg 0.2 0.7 Nickel mg/kg 21 60

Zinc mg/kg 160 410 Sum TBT & DBT mg/kg 0.1 0.5 y-HCH (Lindane) µg/kg 0.3 1 HCB µg/kg 0.3 1 PCB (individual congers) µg/kg 1 180 PCB (sum of 7) µg/kg 7 1260 PAH (Sum of 16) µg/kg 4000 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons g/kg 1

Sediment Quality – Alexandra Basin West The sediments within the Alexandra Basin West were found to be unsuitable for disposal at sea at the majority of locations within the basin. Parameters which exceeded the upper level guideline were heavy metals (Nickel, Lead, Zinc, Cadmium Copper and Mercury), Tributyltin (TBT), Dibutyltin (DBT) and Total Extractable Hydrocarbons. Parameters which where between the lower and upper level guideline were Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) The Marine Institute confirmed the results of the assessment and advised that the sediments within the Alexandra Basin West are unsuitable for disposal at sea. The sediments within the Alexandra Basin West were also assessed with regard to their suitability for use as fill material. Based on the sediment analysis undertaken to date, the sediments do not meet the acceptance criteria for inert waste. Treatment of the sediments is therefore required and proposed prior to use as a fill material within the Berth 52/53 basin and Graving Dock #2.



Treatment of Contaminated Material

Best practice industry techniques will be used to treat the contaminated material yielded from the dredging of the Alexandra Basin. Stabilisation/Solidification (S/S) is a remediation technology that reduces the mobility of contaminants. Immobilisation is achieved by reaction of contaminants with reagents to promote sorption, precipitation or incorporation into crystal lattices, and/or by physically encapsulating the contaminants1.

The method produces a high strength monolith-like product that physically reduces the mobility and chemically binds contaminants to the produced matrix. The treated mass can then be recovered/recycled to serve as infill material or for beneficial use2. This has been undertaken at a number of sites as described in Appendix 11.

The treatment and recovery of the dredging spoil on site will take place in accordance with the conditions of an Industrial Emissions Licence to be obtained from the EPA. Following treatment the material will be placed in Graving Dock #2 and Berth 52/53 as a recovery activity, replacing the need to use virgin materials that would otherwise be required for the development.

Design Mix

The type and amount of binder is to be further explored through an initial laboratory based study to identify the most appropriate binder to be used in the project. Representative samples of the source material will be mixed with the chemical additives to determine the mix proportions required to stabilise the material (bench scale treatability studies). The laboratory testing will determine the percentage of binders to be added to the sediment to be treated. Leaching and diffusion tests on the stabilised material will be compared to the existing baseline background condition (i.e. to ensure that leaching of contaminants from the S/S treated sediment will be less than in the untreated sediment currently in the filling areas). The contaminants in the dredged sediments will be bound to a low-leaching state and will not add to the pollution load on existing water quality in the harbour. The mitigation measures proposed will ensure that the development will not prevent ‘Liffey Estuary Lower’ transitional water body and ‘Dublin Bay’ coastal water body from achieving its objectives under the EU Water Framework Directive. This information will be included as part of the Industrial Emissions Licence application to the EPA.

The stabilisation mix used in the dredged treatment will be designed specifically for the sediment at Alexandra Basin. Typical binder quantity values vary from 100 kg/m3 up to 250 kg/m3. The binder can consist of a single substance or be a mixture of various substances like cement or lime etc. Chemical, physical as well as geomechanical properties of the stabilised material largely depend on the type and quantity of binder used3.

The mix is likely to include a combination of the chemicals listed in Table 11.2.

1 Bone B.,et al (2004); Guidance on the use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil Pollution .Environment Agency 2 Suzdalev S.(2012) Contaminants-Binders-Sediments, Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments Baltic Sea Region Programme Project No #39 3 Suzdalev S.,(2012) Contaminants-Binders-Sediments. Baltic Sea Region Programme Project No #39



Table 11.2 Chemicals or reagents that may be used in the treatment process4.

Chemicals or reagents that may be used in the treatment process

Cement Ash and FGD (end product of flue gas desulphurisation

Bentonite Oil shale ash

Lime Calcium Sulphate Products

Blast furnace slag Blend of the above

Binder quantities for those projects described in Appendix 11 range from 110kg/ m3 up to 200kg/m3. This would equate to a 20% increase in the volume of contaminated dredge spoil. i.e. 470,000 m3 of contaminated dredge spoil will equate to 564,000 m3 of infill after stabilisation. Following the determination of the binder(s) to be added and prior to construction a field test will be undertaken to show and verify in-situ the applicability of the S/S with respect to:

• geotechnical and environmental properties of the treated contaminated dredged sediments

• the behaviour of the construction with the treated material in the infill areas • the influence on the surrounding environment • the process stabilisation technology

Transport

Dredged material will be transported to the treatment facility by barge.

The contaminated dredged material will be left on the barge overnight to allow for settlement. This method is proposed to remove as much free water from the dredged material as possible5. Liquid arising from the solid material settling will be pumped out to an appropriately licensed mobile water treatment plant on site. The dredged material will be off loaded by excavators to the treatment facility. Mechanically dredged sediments typically have solid content comparable to that of in situ sediments6 .

Spills from the barges will be prevented by using spill plates.

4 Suzdalev S.,(2012) Contaminants-Binders-Sediments. Baltic Sea Region Programme Project No #39 5 Boskalis, 2013 pers comm. January 2014 6 Blažauskas N, Larsson L., Rostmark S., (2012). Technologies and Solutions for Handling of Contaminated Sediment .State of the Art Review Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments. Baltic Sea Region Programme Project No #39



Treatment Process

Dredging and treatment will be carried out at a rate of approximately 1,000 m3 per day. The sediment handling process is estimated to last approximately 18 months based on the estimated volume to be treated of 470,000 m3 and will be undertaken all year round.

Separation

The contaminated dredged material will be screened to remove extraneous material unsuitable for treatment (e.g. debris). This can be undertaken on the barge by raking or by feeding the material onto a screen. This material will be disposed off at an appropriately licensed landfill.

Separation techniques may be applied (should the material be suitable for this technique) to separate dredge material into fines, sand and gravel in order to separate contaminated fine particles from uncontaminated sediments. Uncontaminated sediment may be used as fill material without the requirement for further treatment. The need for dewatering will be determined by the water requirements of the treatment technology and the solids content of the sediments following removal, transport and screening and separation pre-treatment. The separated sand typically has a solid content around 80 – 85% leaving the process7.

Dewatering

Reducing the moisture content reduces the volume to be treated and the volume of additives that may be required for the S/S process.

If required, further dewatering methods will be applied to the fines to return the dredged sediments moisture content as a minimum to that of the insitu material. After screening, the material will be dewatered by mechanical pressing. Dewatering will reduce the dredged material’s moisture content and consolidate it to facilitate handling thereby reducing the volume for the subsequent treatment process. Generally, mechanical dewatering technologies can remove free and intestinal water and increase the solids content up to 70 percent by weight8. The dewatering process can be engineered around a large difference in moisture content. For example9:

• If dewatering with belt filter presses, the filter cake might have a solid content in the range of 40 – 50% by weight. Belt filter press cake is dry enough for transport but still has some plasticity.

• If membrane presses, the solid content of the filter cake will be between 55 – 70%. Membrane press cake is firm.

7 Boskalis, 2013 pers comm. January 2014 8 Blažauskas N, Larsson L., Rostmark S., (2012). Technologies and Solutions for Handling of Contaminated Sediment .State of the Art Review Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments. Baltic Sea Region Programme Project No #39 9 Boskalis, 2013, pers comm. January 2014



Flocculants may be required for mechanical dewatering. Water arising from the dewatering process will be removed by pumping and treated in a water treatment plant before being discharged via the designated discharge point in accordance with appropriate consents.

Water Treatment

During the construction phase of works, the contractor will be required to manage any contaminated water arising from the sediment handling process. A water treatment plant will comprise a single lane treatment process to remove suspended solids, product and contaminants (if present) from the waste water produced from the dredging, dewatering and treatment processes. The volume of water to be treated will be determined by the amount of water to be removed prior to the treatment process.

For sediment handling process of 1,000 m3 per day the volume of water to be treated is estimated to be 20-25 m3 per hour 10. The water treatment plant will be sized accordingly.

The waste water will be pumped from the treatment area into a settlement holding tank/lagoon. From the tank/ lagoon water will be pumped through a separator to prevent suspended solids and oil from entering the treatment process. From the separator the remaining water will be pumped through a sand filter to remove further suspended solids and activated carbon vessel to remove the organic contaminants if required before discharged via a designated discharge point in accordance with the appropriate consents.

Sampling points will be included within the pipe work system to allow for the collection of water samples. The proposed sampling and testing schedule will be based on flow and effluent quality prior to discharge. The sand filter and activated carbon will be replaced as required. These will be disposed of to a licensed facility.

Sediment Handling

The sediment handling process will be undertaken in a batching plant in the treatment area. An area of approximately 50m x 100m would be required to facilitate the sediment handling process of approximately 1,000 m3 of contaminated dredge material per day.

The S/S treatment plant will be brought to the treatment area by road on low-loaders or by sea aboard barges and set up. Plant and equipment will be installed on concrete hardstanding areas. If necessary, temporary buildings will be erected to cover the material while it is being stored and treated.

The exact type, number, and specification of the plant and equipment to be installed at the proposed treatment area will be determined by the selected contactor for the works. However conventional mixing techniques, including the use of spaders and screening/mixing buckets are used in the ex-situ application. The plant can be scaled according to the volume to be treated.

10 Boskalis, 2013, pers comm. January 2014



The key issues that will be taken into consideration when identifying suitable process and plant are11 :

• material characteristics and ground conditions (e.g. bearing capacity);

• quantity of material to be treated and rate of treatment;

• size of treatment area available; and

• compatibility of equipment with proposed binder system;

• the specific requirements for the end-product;

• the ability of the plant to deal with volatile contaminants, if present; and

• movement of materials around the site, before and after treatment.

Filling of Treated Sediments

The treated contaminated dredged material will be recovered for use as infill for Graving Dock #2 and Berth 52/53.

Prior to the filling of Berth 52/53 basin, a cellular cofferdam will be constructed to close off Berth 52/53 from the main navigation channel. This will eliminate surface water flows from the main estuary into the berths. .

The treated sediment will be off loaded (dry dig) by excavators into trucks or pumped from the treatment area to the infill areas. Water quality will be measured in Berth 52/53 during the filling operation to ensure that measured parameters are within agreed limits. If necessary, a controlled outlet from Berth 52/53 will be constructed to control water level/flow. A written record of the types and quantities of material recovered at the infill sites will be maintained. Ongoing monitoring of the S/S process during the field trial and construction project will consist of the following:

• Geotechnical tests e.g. the permeability (hydraulic conductivity) and the compression strength of the stabilised materials after different strength development periods;

• Environmental testing e.g. batch leaching tests and diffusion testing to measure the

leaching of contaminants from the S/S treated material; • An ongoing monitoring programme will be undertaken prior, during and post the recovery

operation (surface water quality in harbour, monitoring of pore water in the construction, toxicity test on S/S samples, sediment samples from the harbour, water levels and groundwater); and

• A Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) programme will be established

11 Bone B.,et al (2004); Guidance on the use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil Pollution .Environment Agency



Due to nature of the dredging following the treatment process (to be demonstrated by geotechnical and environmental testing), no emission to the environmental of significance is expected.

Sediment Quality – Navigation Channel

The sediments within the Navigation Channel were found to be suitable for disposal at sea.

There is however an area immediately adjacent to Alexander Basin West where low levels of contamination have been identified requiring this material to be disposed of at sea only at slack tide and immediately covered by sand or gravel.

It is proposed to dispose of the dredged at the licensed sea disposal site located to the west of the Burford Bank at the entrance to Dublin Bay, subject to the granting of a Dumping at Sea Permit by the EPA (see Chapter 9 – Coastal Processes).

Dredging Requirements

The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment requires a capital dredging scheme to achieve the following design depths: • Dredging of Alexandra Basin West to -10m CD

• Dredging of the Navigation Channel to -10m CD from circa East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy.

The volumes of material to be dredged are outlined in Table 11.3 and the location of these areas are shown in Figure 11.6.

Table 11.3 Dredge Volumes

Source Location Material Status Volume (m3) Alexandra Basin Heavily

Contaminated 470,000

Navigation Channel Slightly – moderately Contaminated

500,000

Navigation Channel Uncontaminated 5,400,000

Total 6,370,000



Figure 11.6 Dredge Material Locations

A description of the proposed dredging activities and the timing of the dredging works is presented in Chapter 4.

11.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Construction phase impacts

Temporary impacts on water quality and potentially groundwater can occur during the construction phase of the works. Pollution from mobilised suspended sediment is the prime potential risk.

• Increased suspended sediment levels due to dredging and deposal of dredge spoil;

• Sedimentation due to settling of suspended silt;

• The dispersal and fate of contaminated sediments;

• Water quality impacts associated with works machinery, infrastructure and on-land operations (for example leakages /spillages of fuels, oils, other chemicals and waste water, controlled discharges under licence);

• Impact of piling operations through creation of a vertical pathway in which potentially contaminated soils/sediment and/or groundwater can migrate downwards; and

• Leaching of contaminants from sediments used as fill material.




Operational phase impacts are associated with normal port operations whilst dealing with continued growth. These include potential impacts from:

• Discharges from vessels using the port (ballast water, wastewater, oil spillages, fuel bunkering);

• Discharges from cargo handling (leakages from containers, bulk material spillages, losses from conveyor systems);

• Discharges from cargo storage areas and onward transportation (losses from hoppers, flat bulk stores and HGVs); and

• Long term leaching of contaminants from sediments used as fill material.

Any of these activities have the potential to impact on water quality (including groundwater) and therefore the activities associated with the construction and operation phases of the development require mitigation.

Impact matrix

The impacts described above are rated in according to their severity (major, moderate, minor and neutral) in the absence of any mitigation in Table 11.4.



Table 11.4 Impact matrix (in the absence of mitigation)

Navigation Channel


Bull Wall)


Navigation Channel


Buoy)

Construction phase

Suspended sediments Major Major Moderate

Sedimentation Major Major Moderate

Pollution from contaminated sediment Moderate Major Minor


Moderate Moderate Minor

Impact of piling operations Neutral Minor Neutral

Leaching of contaminated sediments used as fill material

Neutral Major Neutral

Operational Phase

Suspended sediments Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for




Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for


Pollution from contaminated sediment Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for


Neutral



Discharges from vessels using the port Minor Minor Minor

Discharges from cargo handling Neutral Moderate Neutral




Neutral Major Neutral



11.4 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Construction Phase Impacts

The ABR Project has been designed to minimize the impact on the receiving water environment. This assessment is described in Chapter 10 Water.

The risk of water quality impacts associated with works machinery, infrastructure and on-land operations (for example leakages /spillages of fuels, oils, other chemicals and waste water) can be controlled through good site management and the adherence to codes and practices which limit the risk to within acceptable levels. These are described in Section 11.5 Mitigation.


The new port facilities, when complete, will be subject to the Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan. Dublin Port is accredited to ISO 14001 to ensure that all employees undertake their work with due consideration for the environment and that guidance is given to tenants to promote the principles of sustainability. Dublin Port has been designated an ‘Ecoport’ at European level, for its environmental management system. DPC also maintains and operates an emergency management plan and has the emergency management structures and arrangements in place which are compatible with the requirements of the 2006 Framework for Major Emergency Management. These include procedures for dealing with, amongst others: a major oil spill from a vessel, jetty or on land including storage areas; a major spill of hazardous material from a vessel, jetty or on land including storage areas and vehicle accidents involving hazardous material. Training of staff and exercises are undertaken in line with best practice. Dublin Port’s Environmental Management Plan does not permit any discharges from vessels using the port, or travelling through Dublin Bay, to the receiving waters.

Human beings will not be exposed to treated contaminated sediment as the material will be covered with concrete hard-standing thereby negating any direct contact, ingestion or inhalation pathways.


Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures include adherence to the construction techniques and timing of works (outlined in this EIS) which form an integral part of the engineering design and which have been developed to minimize the impact of the project on the receiving water environment.

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared to capture all mitigation measures within the Environmental Impact Statement together with any conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála and to provide additional detail in order to develop a practical programme of measures for the Contractor. The CEMP will form part of the specification of the



Contract Documents for the construction stage. The CEMP will include mitigation measures to safeguard the receiving waters including:

(i) Waste Management Plan (ii) Contamination Strategy (iii) Water Quality Management Plan (iv) Establishment of lines of communication, reporting and actions

The mitigation measures will include the requirements for best practice and adherence to relevant Irish guidelines, or international guidelines where these are not available:

• Good practice guidelines on the control of water pollution from construction sites developed by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA, 2001).

• Pollution prevention guidelines in relation to a variety of activities developed by the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environmental Agency (SEPA) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA).

• Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG6);

• Fisheries Guidelines for Local Authority Works. Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources, Dublin, (Anonymous, 1998);

• Guidelines on protection of fisheries habitats during construction projects (Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, 2006);

• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) for domestic waste discharges to the environment;

• International Marine Organisation guidelines;

• Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Handling of Hazardous Materials.

The preparation of the CEMP associated with the receiving waters will require continual engagement with a range of interested parties/stakeholders including Dublin City Council, EPA, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Dublin Port tenants and local community groups.

A Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme will also be prepared to provide additional safeguards to the receiving environment during the construction phase of the works. The monitoring programme will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction stage.



The design of the monitoring programme will include the following elements related to the receiving waters:

(i) An assessment using 3-D hydrodynamic computational modelling and water quality modelling to design the placement of a number of water quality monitoring buoys and telemetry based warning systems

(ii) The establishment of water quality trigger levels and corresponding actions (including the necessity to temporarily cease construction operations) to safeguard sensitive conservation sites (SPA and SAC) and the operations of other users of the receiving waters (e.g. ESB Poolbeg Power Station).

The preparation of the monitoring programme will require continual engagement with a range of interested parties/stakeholders including Dublin City Council, EPA, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Dublin Port tenants, ESB and local community groups. A Piling Risk Assessment will also be prepared to assess the potential risk to groundwater and any necessary mitigation measures adopted during construction.

Operational Phase Mitigation Measures

The new port facilities, when complete, will be subject to the Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan.

In particularly, the following shall be adhered to with respect to vessels at berth or travelling through Dublin Bay:

• No waste should be disposed of at sea;

• Ballast water should be treated in accordance with MARPOL standards;

• Ballast tanks should be separate from hydrocarbon storage areas and no potentially contaminated streams should be diverted to the ballast tanks;

• De-ballasting should be undertaken offshore in accordance with IMO guidelines;

• Hazardous wastes should be stored in sealed, labelled drums in locked chemical cabinets;

• Vessels should be equipped with oil-water separation systems in accordance with MARPOL requirements;

• Spills on deck should be contained and controlled using absorbing materials;

• Vessels without sewage treatment systems should have suitable holding tanks and will bring waste onshore for treatment by licensed contractors;

• All chemicals used onboard should be handled in compliance with COSHH instructions on handling hazardous materials;

• Chemicals should be stored appropriately in suitably bunded areas and with material safety data sheets;



• All waste discharges should be monitored and recorded as per vessel procedures.

Residual Impacts

Provided appropriate mitigations measures are fully implemented during the construction and operational phases, the impact of the proposed development on the surface water quality and groundwater quality will be neutral to minor as indicated in Table 11.5.

There is no residual impact with regard to geology.

Table 11.5 Residual Impacts (with mitigation)

Navigation Channel

(Alexandra Basin West to

Bull Wall)


Navigation Channel


Buoy) Construction phase Suspended sediments Minor Minor Minor Sedimentation ` Minor Minor Minor Pollution from contaminated sediment Minor Minor Minor Other water quality issues associated with construction works

Minor Minor Minor

Impact of piling operations Neutral Minor Neutral Leaching of contaminated sediments used as fill material




dredging)

Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for




Neutral (except for


Neutral (except for


Pollution from contaminated sediment Neutral

Neutral (except for


Neutral



Discharges from vessels using the port Neutral Minor Neutral Discharges from cargo handling Neutral Minor Neutral Discharges from cargo storage areas and onward transportation






12. CULTURAL HERITAGE

This chapter of the EIS presents the cultural heritage assessment which was undertaken to identify and record the location, nature, and dimensions of any archaeological and architectural features, fabric or artefacts that may be impacted by the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project. The assessment includes an examination of existing sources and the acquisition of new data arising from site inspections and surveys. The assessment gauges the level of development impact, and includes detailed recommendations for the mitigation of any archaeology present within the development area.

The cultural heritage assessment was undertaken by Dr Niall Brady of Archaeological Diving Company Ltd (ADCO).

Given the importance of the industrial heritage of the North Wall Quay Extension and Graving Dock #1, this work was supplemented by a Level 2 industrial archaeological heritage study which was undertaken by Dr Colin Rynne, Historic Building Survey Unit, Department of Archaeology, University College Cork.

The cultural heritage assessment included a comprehensive review of existing records and maps and the undertaking of project-related site investigations above and below the waterline, under licence from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

The results and observations are described in this present chapter and detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix 12.

The archaeological survey area extends from the East Link Bridge, approximately 10km east into Dublin Bay, to near the Dublin Bay Buoy. The survey area extends beyond the navigation channel within the Bay area, to reach over 800m in width at the eastern extent. The co-ordinates of the study area are provided in Table 12.1. The extent of the survey area is shown on Figure 12.1.

Table 12.1 Extent of Study Area including co-ordinates within which a marine geophysical survey was conducted

Name Latitude Longitude Easting ITM Northing ITM 01 53º20.975’N 006º13.650’W 718010 734727

02 53º20.750’N 006º06.730’W 725699 734506

03 53º20.300’N 006º04.430’W 728274 733740

04 53º19.450’N 006º06.325’W 726213 732108

05 53º19.650’N 006º05.250’W 727396 732510

06 53º20.200’N 006º06.900’W 725537 733482

07 53º20.720’N 006º13.650’W 718022 734254



Figure 12.1 Extent of Study Area



12.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

A sequence of work has been completed to ensure that the Cultural Heritage assessment has been comprehensive and robust. The work has included a desktop study of known archaeological and architectural sources, a review of site investigations conducted for the wider project, and on-site inspections and surveys which have included walkover surveys of the terrestrial elements, comprehensive marine geophysical survey and archaeological dive inspection.

12.1.1 Consultations

The following sources of information have been consulted:

The Irish Antiquities Division of the National Museum of Ireland (NMI) retains an extensive archive of small finds and objects discovered across Ireland and reported to the Museum and its predecessors since the nineteenth century. It represents a critical resource for archaeological research, where registered objects are recorded by townland in the Topographical Files. For the present project, the following townlands and city districts were assessed: Ringsend; St. Thomas’; North Dock Ward; Alexandra Basin.

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) Sites and Monuments Record files. The information, which is also filed according to townland, provides details relating to specific monuments and sites of archaeological importance that survive or whose site area is recorded. The record generally includes only sites that pre-date c. 1750 AD.

DAHG’s Historic Shipwreck Inventory files and Places and Ports archive. This information relates to the archives maintained by the National Monuments Section’s Underwater Archaeology Unit for shipwreck and other maritime sites of archaeological interest. The information is located with reference to the nearest topographic locator, such as a town or headland, as well as site-specific grid coordinates where known. For the present project, the following landmarks were considered to be relevant:

On the North side: Alexandra Basin; North Wall; Bull Wall; North Spit; North Bull Lighthouse;

On the South side: Ringsend; Poolbeg; Pigeon House; and running across North and South: Dublin Harbour; Dublin Bar.

National Inventory of Architectural Heritage at DAHG provides an online register of historic buildings and features/street furniture that retain architectural interest, and is maintained by the DAHG’s architectural section. The Inventory is organized by place and townland. The Inventory complements the archaeological inventories by including buildings and features that date from the eighteenth century and more recently.

The Irish National Seabed Survey section of the Geological Survey of Ireland retains site-specific information relating to hydrographic surveys of Dublin Bay, the details of which inform the distribution of known shipwreck sites by providing an indication of the extent of a wreckage feature and its location.



In addition, the following sources and groups of sources have been consulted:

Cartographic sources, including Admiralty Charts and Ordnance Survey First and Second Edition maps. Historic and current topographical maps represent very important sources that can reveal the progress of natural erosion and human development across a landscape/seascape over time. Such mapping in Ireland is metrically accurate from the mid-late nineteenth century. As the country’s capital city and port, Dublin and Dublin Bay have been subject to numerous mapping projects, and the present study draws on sources that date from as early as the 1650s.

Office of Public Works Piers and Harbour Structures files, 1708-1922 (OPW/8). This body of state records refer to port improvement works across the country and forms part of the National Archives collection.

Excavations Bulletin is an annual published list of licensed archaeological intervention work conducted across Ireland. It is arranged by county and then by townland, and is currently completed to 2011.

The following relevant published and unpublished sources have also been consulted:

Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017.

Dublin Docklands Architectural Survey, 2006.

Dublin Port Company Masterplan, 2012-2040.

Dublin City Council Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR).

Civil Engineering Heritage Archive.

Dublin City Public Libraries archives.

Dublin Port Archives.

Online sources.

12.1.2 Acquisition

The desktop assessment included a review of historic mapping that can reveal the development of the landscape over time, an examination of existing archival information at the NMI and DAHG in relation to the known archaeological objects, features and sites of archaeological, architectural and industrial heritage interest, and a review of archaeological work conducted in the immediate vicinity of the project area from published and unpublished sources. This information combines to establish a baseline data source. The principal findings are described below and the detailed results are presented in Appendix 12.1.

Project-specific site work was commissioned by Dublin Port Company (DPC) to inform the ABR Project. Site investigations were conducted on land and at sea, and the details made available for archaeological review. The principal observations are described in this Chapter, with the archaeological interpretations of these data sets presented in Appendix 12.2.



An archaeological walkover survey of the terrestrial elements was completed, and included an inspection of the current quaysides above the waterline from a boat. The principal observations are described in this Chapter and the detailed results are presented in Appendix 12.3.

A comprehensive programme of marine geophysical survey was conducted across the marine area in 2013, and archaeological diver inspection also commenced in 2013. The work has generated a valuable and extensive resource of new information that informs the EIA. The principal observations are described in this Chapter and the detailed results are presented in Appendix 12.4.

Archaeological dive inspection is taking place of the anomalies identified in the marine geophysical survey. The dive observations are described in this Chapter and are presented in Appendix 12.5. A total of 120 side-scan sonar targets were identified for inspection, 42 of which have been inspected already. The remaining 78 targets will be inspected by May 2014, weather permitting.

12.1.3 Legislation

The following legislation, standards and guidelines with particular reference to Archaeology were consulted for the purposes of this evaluation:

National Monuments Acts, 1930-2004.

The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill, 2006.

The Heritage Act, 1995.

Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements, 2002, EPA.

Advice Notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), 2003, EPA.

Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes, no date, NRA.

Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1999, Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and Islands (now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht).

Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2000 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 2000.

Code of Practice between Bord Gáis Éireann and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht), 2002.

Limitations

The current report is based on desktop review and non-disturbance on-site archaeological assessment only. No intrusive archaeological investigations or excavations have been carried out.



12.1.4 Classification of Impacts

Impacts are generally categorised as either being a direct impact, an indirect impact or as having no predicted impact:

Direct impact occurs when an item of archaeological or architectural heritage is located within the centreline of the proposed route alignment and entails the removal of part, or all, of the monument or feature.

Indirect impact may be caused where a feature or site of archaeological or architectural interest is located in close proximity of the proposed development.

No predicted impact occurs when the proposed route option does not adversely or positively affect an archaeological or architectural heritage site.

These impact categories are further assessed in terms of their quality i.e. positive, negative, neutral (or direct and indirect).

Negative Impact is a change that will detract from or permanently remove an archaeological or architectural monument from the landscape.

Neutral Impact is a change that does not affect the archaeological or architectural heritage.

Positive Impact is a change that improves or enhances the setting of an archaeological or architectural monument.

A significance rating for these impacts is then given i.e. slight, moderate, significant or profound.

Profound applies where mitigation would be unlikely to remove adverse effects. This is reserved for adverse, negative effects only. These effects arise where an archaeological or architectural site is completely and irreversibly destroyed by a proposed development.

Significant is an impact that, by its magnitude, duration or intensity alters an important aspect of the environment. An impact like this would be where the part of a site would be permanently impacted upon leading to a loss of character, integrity and data about the archaeological or architectural feature/site.

Moderate is a moderate direct impact that arises where a change to the site is proposed which, though noticeable, is not such that the archaeological integrity of the site is compromised and which is reversible. This arises where an archaeological or architectural feature can be incorporated into a modern day development without damage and that all procedures used to facilitate this are reversible.

Slight is an impact that causes changes in the character of the environment that are not significant or profound and do not directly impact or affect an archaeological or architectural feature or monument.

Imperceptible is an impact capable of measurement but without noticeable consequences.



In addition, the duration of Impacts is assessed and has been sub-divided into the following categories.

Temporary Impact, where an Impact lasts for one year or less

Short-term Impacts, where an Impact lasts one to seven years

Medium-term Impact, where an Impact lasts seven to fifteen years

Long-term Impact, where an Impact lasts fifteen to sixty years.

Permanent Impact, where an Impact lasts over sixty years.

12.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

12.2.1 Cartographic sources

As the country’s principal port and capital city since the Middle Ages, it hardly surprising to find a wealth of early maps and sea charts that record the mouth of the River Liffey and the growing city as it developed eastwards towards the sea (a shortlist of useful maps is presented in Appendix 12.1, Figures 12.2-12.8.). A Dutch military engineer, Bernard de Gomme, created a map of the City and Suburbs of Dublin in 1673 that provides clearly recorded detail of the river mouth, where the future Port would develop. At this point in the late 17th century, much of the estuary remained hazardous to shipping, as indicated by complex sand flats, while various attempts to overcome these restrictions are also recorded, and include the planned (but never realized) construction of a large star-shaped fort out on Ringsend Spit. The presence of the spit helps to explain the slight angle in what became the Great South Wall, which mirrored the Easterly alignment of the channel on the seaward side of the spit, in contrast to its ESE course to the west of the spit. Pigeon House Fort was later built in this area, and it appears from de Gomme’s map that there was already a fortification here. The distinctions that reflect the alignment of the Liffey’s estuary in the late 1600s are obscured today as reclamation has occurred to the west, but the essential elements remain embedded in the alignment of the South Wall.

When the cartographer John Rocque prepared his map of the City Harbour and Environs in 1757, he provided a detailed perspective on the various sand flats and constraints on shipping, and suggests the extent to which the prosperous city was expanding (Appendix 12, Figures 12.3-12.5). It is an important source of information that provides detailed insight to maritime works along the estuary’s mouth. Rocque records a series of navigation markers that highlight the shallows on the north and south sides of the channel as far east as what was then the termination point of the Great South Wall, at what became Pigeon House Fort. The markers appear to be constructed on a basic timber tripod frame, with a more substantial construction close to the terminus of the Wall. This more robust marker, shown with a heap of stone at its base, may highlight the former tip of the Ringsend Spit that was mapped by de Gomme eighty years earlier. The channel at this location in 1757 was much straighter, which suggests a programme of extensive dredging had occurred in the intervening time. A formal buoy, the ‘West Buoy’ marks the Port side of the harbour entrance further to the east, while a floating buoy or ‘Light Ship’ marks the starboard side; both of which foreshadow the North Bull light and Poolbeg lighthouse today.

Reclamation of the intertidal areas on the north side of the Liffey downstream of the city was well underway by 1757, and the North Lotts was laid out and parcelled into blocks, terminating



at ‘East Quay’, which is on the line of East Wall Road today. The site of the future Port remained an undeveloped wedge-shaped sandflat to the east, while further east Rocque’s map records the names of individual sand banks, such as ‘Brown’s Patch’, and highlights the extensive footprint of the Clontarf oysterbeds.

In contrast, the south side was much more developed, with construction of the Great South Wall well underway. Commencing in the west at Ringsend Point, the wall had two slipways: Macarel’s Slip gave access north into the channel and seems to be on the same location of the later Coastguard slip, east of the present-day Poolbeg Yacht Club; while George’s Slip gave access south of the wall onto Sandymount. To the east on the Wall and running at an angle aligned ENE were ‘The Piles’. They are recorded as a parallel line of timber-post couplets, and anticipated the line of the later sea wall that extends out to Poolbeg light house.

Rocque portrays the principal hazard to shipping outside the harbour, namely the Dublin Bar, which he records as ‘The Barr’. To his eye, this was a great sand shallows that swept across the entrance to the harbour in a generous circular path, extending from the sands on Dollymount almost to Ringsend Spit. The average water depth over the bar was 5’ and 6’, but there were two openings over which shipping could pass. The North Channel was aligned with the Piles and depths reached 10’ and 11’. Its location was marked by the North Buoy. The South Channel lay outside and to the south of Ringsend Spit. It too had depths of 10’ and 11’ and was marked by the South Buoy, but its passage would have required a delicate manoeuvring, where vessels would have to tack to get inside the channel and tack again to avoid the Spit.

The ships recorded by Rocque are substantial three-masted ocean-going vessels, as one might expect to service this important city. The ships are shown within the area of the Piles, but do not reach further upriver. This is in contrast to Rocque’s 1756 map of the City and Suburbs of Dublin, which shows a wealth of shipping along the city’s quays, but does not map the area downriver of North Wall Quay and Rogerson’s Quay. The point to take from this variation is that on the 1757 map Rocque conveys an indication of the constraints on shipping, insofar as the deepwater vessels did not extend onto the shallower waters upriver and west of the Clontarf Pool. In their place, smaller vessels and ferries were used to convey merchandise into and out of the city.

The mapping of Dublin harbour and Bay attracted a host of different hydrographers, many of whom were commissioned to assist in developing measures to improve navigation along the Liffey. George Semple’s charts of 1762 are a case in point, but one of the more important surveys was that by Captain Bligh in 1800. Bligh was appointed by the Admiralty, to report on the Bay, the harbours within it and the problems of shallowness in the approaches to Dublin.1 Bligh’s chart extends across the entire bay as far as the Kish Bank, and provides a comprehensive record of depths and hazards. The port and the approach channel form part of the larger map, and this was the first proper chart of the Bay to be produced. He had recommended that a north wall be built, to assist in improving the fluvial dynamic to reduce siltation along the channel. His north wall was funnel-shaped, and is indicated on his Chart as an idea, rather than an as-built structure, which was begun some years later according to the designs by Halpin.

1 Gerard Daly, ‘Captain Bligh in Dublin, 1800-1801’, Dublin Historical Record 44.1 (1991): 20-33, at p. 23.



By 1837, when the Ordnance Survey produced the first metrically accurate maps at 6-inch to the mile scales, the developments on the south side of the river were well underway, and the map shows Pigeon House Fort and completion of the Poolbeg light house to the east (Appendix 12, Figure 12.6). It is at this stage too, that we see reclamation works progressing on the seaward side of East Wall road, with the construction of the Patent Slip, and a narrow line of buildings to the south, where the North Wall light house was built.

From this point on, it is possible to see the developing port emerge. The blocky rectangular form of the deepwater port is recorded on Admiralty Chart 1468, which also provides accurate soundings along the channel, reaching out across Dublin Bar to the east of Poolbeg (Appendix 12, Figure 12.7). Any suggestion of a viable South Channel across the Bar, as indicated by Rocque, is now gone and the only approach is from the east, more or less foreshadowing the footprint for the present-day approach channel.

A more detailed record is provided on Admiralty Chart 1447, dated 1880 (Appendix 12, Figure 12.8). Entitled, ‘Ireland. Dublin Bar and the River Liffey to Carlisle Bridge’, the Chart shows soundings in feet and inches taken between 1878 and 1880 across Dublin Bar outside the harbour, and along the approach channel to what is today O’Connell Bridge. A long linear lobe of deeper water extended beyond the harbour, no doubt representing the dredged channel across the Bar, where depths reached as much as 28’ (8.5m), compared with c. 17’ (5.1m) outside the channel. Inside the harbour, water depths were on average shallower, and were for the most part under 20’. Localised shallows are also indicated. There were linear pockets of deeper water on the north side where depths reached their mid-20s, and depths alongside and within the deepwater berth and extending upriver to Sir John Rogerson’s Quay were also in the mid-20s. The somewhat meandering reach of deeper water that resulted no doubt focussed the access channel for shipping, and reflects the locations and extents of previous dredging campaigns. In recording the deepwater port prior to its official naming, the Chart shows the still unfinished extent of North Quay Extension, which is recorded simply as, ‘quay building’.

By 1907, many of the principal features of the deepwater port were established, and Ordnance Survey mapping records the shipbuilding yard, the North Wall graving dock, and the North Quay Extension, which formed the south side of the deepwater facility. The east side was still only being aspired to. The incomplete nature of the North Quay Extension becomes a signature for the port’s footprint until it was finally completed in 1932.

The historic cartographic information available for the project area helps to convey the consistent process of development, and the maps that survive include some especially detailed records, which makes them a most useful set of archives to work with.

12.2.2 Prehistoric to post-Medieval indicators

As the historical cartographic record indicates clearly, the project area remained undeveloped from a terrestrial perspective until the 19th century. These sources also demonstrate how the area was integrally tied to sea traffic arriving at the Liffey’s mouth to venture inland, or to carry goods and people from the river’s hinterland out to sea. The expanses of sand flats along the river’s lower reaches would have resembled a delta at its mouth, making travel difficult for deeply-drafted vessels, but quite feasible for shallow craft. It was in the late medieval period that developments occurred in marine architecture to meet the demand for larger markets, by



making deeper-drafted ships, and it is at this stage that we begin to see notices in the historical record that complain about the inaccessibility of the city’s quays to shipping.2 It is at this time too, that the deepwater pools and havens around the bay become preferred landing areas for cross-channel ships, including Clontarf, Lambay and Dalkey. The importance to the city of these developments is reflected in the series of ordinances issued by the town fathers to control trade at the satellite ports, requiring traders not to sell their products until they had been transported into the city’s market places. This economic reality resulted in the establishment of the Ballast Board in subsequent years, charged directly with the task of ensuring deepwater access through the river’s mouth up to the city quays.

What is less known is the history of the lower Liffey prior to the realization in the 15th century that the river was no longer ‘fit for purpose’. Excavations within the early medieval/Viking age town continue to show evidence for shipping, where reused ship’s timbers, clench nails, and related material are common enough finds from investigations that have taken place on both sides of the river in the vicinity of Wood Quay.3 The city seal of 1297 further proclaims the importance of maritime trade to the town, by showing the town’s principal trades occupying the length of a ship. These vessels and their predecessors were shallow-drafted forms. Both river- and sea-craft would have worked Ireland’s east coast and were well suited to negotiating the silt and sand deposits that are a feature of many of its river estuaries.

When considering still earlier periods, it is possible to identify simpler craft at work. Dredging works in 2002, taking place in advance of the Gas 2025 Interconnector that made landfall at Gormanston, Co. Meath, uncovered a 7m-long oak log boat, some 500m offshore.4 The find location is close to the mouth of the River Devlin, and the foreshore in the wider area is filled with material and debris from prehistoric occupation that dates from the Neolithic period. The Devlin gave access inland to a rich agricultural hinterland in what is today north Dublin and south Meath, in much the same way that the River Liffey provides an important corridor into north Kildare but on a much greater scale. The Gormanston logboat has been dated to 1193-1013 cal BC, placing it in the Middle Bronze Age, which is considered a busy moment in Ireland’s prehistory, and is witnessed as such in the landscape around Gormanston. The logboat is the first to be found in an active marine context in Ireland, and its presence proves the use of these light craft on coastal waters, as well as along Ireland’s rivers and lakes where they are more usually found.

The archaeological potential of the project area is further informed by a series of discoveries made in the wider area. Three objects were recovered from the river channel close to North Quay Extension, and comprise a clay pipe, a shard of pottery and a piece of copper, indicating the potential for material on the riverbed when they were discovered in 1970 (Appendix 10.1, National Museum of Ireland Topographical Files). The area has since been dredged significantly, and there is no further record of material being recovered. More generally, there are no other objects or structures known from the project area aside of the piers and related

2 Charles Smith, Dalkey: society and economy in a small medieval Irish town (Dublin 1996); Niall Brady, ‘Dublin’s maritime setting and the archaeology of its medieval harbours’, in John Bradley, Alan Fletcher, Anngret Simms (eds), Dublin in the medieval world. Studies in honour of Howard B. Clarke ((Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2009), pp 295-315; Margaret Murphy and Michael Potterton, The Dublin region in the middle ages. Settlement, land-use and economy (Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2010), p. 398. 3 Seán McGrail, ‘The boats and ships of tenth to thirteenth century Dublin; in Seán McGrail, Maritime Archaeology , British Archaeological Reports British Series 256 (Oxford 1997). 4 Niall Brady, ‘Archaeological monitoring and excavation, Gas 2025 Irish Subsea Interconnector, Gormanston landfall Co. Meath, 02E467 02E948, interim report’, unpublished report of the Archaeological Diving Company Ltd, 2002.



features of the deepwater port at Alexandra Basin. However the potential for new discovery remains, especially associated with development works that excavate or disturb ground levels that have not been impacted on previously. This possibility was realized most recently with the discovery of the remains of five fish traps during works associated with development at North Wall Quay.5 Despite the fact that this area was reclaimed from the intertidal expanse of the Liffey in the 18th century, the traps belonged to a much older period when the foreshore was exploited for fishing. The traps were dated to the Mesolithic period (c. 6100-5720 BC), and reveal the presence of human activity engaged with maritime activities close to the old shoreline at a very early stage, some 6m below current Ordnance Datum. A further trap was identified close by at between -5m and -4.66m OD, dating to the Late Mesolithic period (c. 6000-5840BC) and a Neolithic-period wattle fence was also associated (5980-5760BC), suggesting the duration of these activities over time.

Of less striking news but nonetheless an important indicator of potential, was the discovery of a flint axe-head dating to the subsequent Neolithic period, which was uncovered among foundation material during works at 31 Castle Avenue, Clontarf. A range of other pieces are associated with Clontarf, where flint and bone was found at ‘Marino’, along with some bronze objects, including an axe head, a sword and a dagger. A log boat or dug-out canoe is associated with Sutton, when it was discovered in a sandbank in 1935.

A boat wreck was also recorded in the shallow waters east of the deepwater port Terminal 5, outside but close to the current project area (Appendix 12.1, wreck reference W01465).6 The wreck is partially exposed at Low Water, where a series of timber elements are visible, while the larger portion of the vessel remains buried in the covering sands.

Licensed archaeological work has taken place within the current project area, most notably when archaeological monitoring was conducted of maintenance dredging within the approach channel in 2001.7 No material of archaeological significance was observed during that work. Further work conducted as part of the Cross-Bay wastewater pipeline recovered individual timbers and objects (Appendix 12.1, excavation references 01E283, 01E358).

The current project seeks to deepen the approach channel in places by up to 3m. This represents a significant and direct impact on previously unexamined levels of the seabed that crosses the ancient sand flats including the Dublin Bar. Much of the seabed area has however been substantially altered by dredging activities conducted since the 17th century. A record of the recorded dredging campaigns since 1800, for instance, indicates the extent of impact already within the Approach Channel (Table 12.2).

5 M. McQuade, ‘Final Report of Archaeological Excavation Building C, Spenser Dock, North Wall Quay, Dublin 1’, Unpublished report, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd, 2003. 6 Rex Bangerter, ‘Detailed archaeological survey, timber wreck, Dublin Port. 08E497 08D038’, unpublished report of the Archaeological Diving Company Ltd, 2008 7 Simon O Faolain, ‘Dublin Port, docks and shipping fairway, Dublin, 01E1004’ in Isabel Bennett (ed.) Excavations 2001 (Wordwell, Bray, 2003), p. 93.358.



Table 12.2 The deepening of the Approach Channel to Dublin Port since 1800 as a result of induced tidal scour and capital dredging

Year Depth

1800 2.0m

1819 2.0m

1822 2.6m

1828 2.9m

1838 3.2m

1856 4.0m

1873 4.9m

1939 6..4m

1951 7.0m

1976 7.8m

2013 7.8m

Source: Dublin Port Company

The removal of such a substantial depth of sediments within the Approach Channel does not negate the archaeological risk associated with new capital dredging, but it does help to qualify the low level of associated risk.

12.2.3 Architectural and Industrial Heritage

The features and structures that were built as part of the city’s attempts to improve the fluvial dynamic of the Liffey’s mouth for shipping are of direct interest to the present study, as are the structures associated with the development of the Port site in what became Alexandra Basin. Details of the sites are presented in Appendix 12.1, where they are tabulated according to the particular archive that refers to them. Table 12.3 simplifies the detail presented in the appendix. A distribution map showing the cultural heritage assets is presented as Figure 12.7 in Appendix 12.1.



Table 12.3 Archaeological, Architectural and Industrial Heritage sites within and in proximity to the ABR Project

Reference Site type Status Impacts from ABR

Alexandra Basin

GSI 162 Wrecksite Buried Overburden will be removed, potentially exposing this site

DCIHR 18-08-079 Port and Docks Depot Buried None

DCIHR 18-08-080 Shipbuilding Yard Buried None

DCIHR 18-08-081 NCEHD 3024

North Wall Graving Dock Buried To be re-opened as part of Heritage Gain

DCIHR 18-08-082 Engine House Now entrance to Port

None

DCIHR 18-08-083 Flour Mill Upstanding None

DCIHR 18-08-084 Grain Silo Upstanding None

DCIHR 18-08-085 North Assembly Rd None

DCIHR 18-08-92 Gasometer Now a roadway

None

DCIHR 18-08-094, 18-12-089

Quay, East Wall Rd None

DCIHR 18-08-099 Lighthouse, East Wall Rd Site of None

DCIHR 18-08-101 North Wall Graving Dock Pumphouse

Upstanding To be refurbished as part of Heritage Gain

DCIHR 18-12-005, DCIHR 18-12-084, DCIHR 18-12-091, NCEHD 3253

North Wall Quay Extension (NWQE)

Upstanding Development works will partially remove and partially bury the quay in the redevelopment of NWQE

DCIHR 18-12-080 Great Southern and Western Rail, section

Buried None

DCIHR 18-12-082 Harbour Master’s Office, East Wall Rd

Buried None

DCIHR 18-12-083 Goods Shed, North Quay Extension (NWQE)

Site of Development works will partially remove and partially bury the quay in the redevelopment of NWQE

DCIHR 18-12-085 Goods Shed, NWQE Site of Development works will partially remove and partially bury the quay in the redevelopment of NWQE

DCIHR 18-12-086 Goods Shed, NWQE Site of Development works will partially remove and partially bury the quay in the redevelopment of NWQE

DCIHR 18-12-087 Revenue Watch House, NWQE

Site of Development works will partially remove and partially bury the quay in the redevelopment of NWQE



DCIHR 18-12-088 North Wall Lighthouse, NWQE

Upstanding The lighthouse will be relocated at the terminus of the redeveloped NWQE

DCIHR 18-12-089 Quay, Alexandra Basin Buried

DCIHR 18-12-090, NCEHD 3266

Alexandra Quay Upstanding

DCIHR 18-12-091 Alexandra Basin Working Port

Development works will dredge the basin

DCIHR 18-12-092, 93 Lighthouse (site), NWQE Site of Development works will partially remove and partially bury the quay in the redevelopment of NWQE

DCIHR 18-12-094 Landing Stage, North Wall Quay/NWQE

Site of None

DCIHR 19-09-002 Breakwater Site of None

DCIHR 19-09-003 Breakwater Light House Site of None

NCEHD 3080 Dublin Port

NCEHD 3138 Alexandra Bridge, East Wall Rd

North Bull Wall

DCIHR 19-06-001, DCIHR 19-05-012, NCEHD 3016

North Bull Wall Upstanding None

NCEHD 3152 Bull Rock Lighthouse Upstanding None

South Bull Wall

RMP DU019-027, RPS 6794

Blockhouse, Pigeon House Fort

Remnants survive

None

RMP DU019-028 Battery Swimming pool

None

RMP DU019-029002; RPS 6798

Sea wall. Great South Wall to Poolbeg Lighthouse

Upstanding None

RPS 6793 St Catherine’s Hospital and surviving boundary walls, Pigeon House Rd

Remnants survive

None

RPS 6795 Former Pigeon House Hotel, Pigeon House Rd

None

RPS 6796 Pigeon House Rd None

RPS 6797 Pigeon House Power Station, former red-brick generating station, Pigeon House Rd

Upstanding None



RPS 6798, NCEHD 3051, RPS 6798

Poolbeg Lighthouse, Great South Wall, Poolbeg

Upstanding Foundations of Great South Wall terminus will be reinforced with further rock armouring due to deeper dredge design level

DCIHR 18-12-151 Syphon House Derelict None

DCIHR 18-12-152 Dublin Main Drainage Pumping Station, Pigeon House Rd

Upstanding None

DCIHR 19-09-001 Boat slip , Pigeon House Rd

None

DCIHR 19-09-004 Outfall works, Pigeon House Rd

None

DCIHR 19-09-005 Lifeboat House , Pigeon House Rd

None

DCIHR 19-09-006, NCEHD 3271

Electricity works/Power Station , Pigeon House Rd

Upstanding None

DCIHR 19-09-007 Cooling water intake dolphin ramp, Dublin Harbour

Upstanding None

DCIHR 19-09-008 Lifeboat House, South Wall

None

DCIHR 19-09-009 Sluice House, South Wall None

DCIHR 19-09-010 Causeway, South Wall None

DCIHR 19-09-011 Slip, South Wall None

DCIHR 19-09-012 Landing slip, Pigeon House Rd

None

DCIHR 19-09-015 Poolbeg Generating Station chimneys, Pigeon House

Upstanding None

Approach Channel

W1551 Wrecksite Not visible Location will be dredged




Note: RMP-Record of Monuments and Places; RPS-Record of Protected Structures; DCIHR-Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record; NCEHD-National Civil Engineering Database; W-Historic Shipwreck Inventory.

The majority of sites and features are of relatively modern date, dating from the 19th century and more recently, and refer to the Industrial Heritage of the river and the port. In recent years, Industrial Heritage has grown in significance, and Dublin City Council has championed the recording of sites as part of its Industrial Heritage Record (the DCIHR). All of the sites within Alexandra Basin, for instance, belong to this category, as do the sprinkling of features from the North Bull wall. The School of Engineering at Trinity College Dublin maintains a database of sites they regard as having a heritage value. Of the 275 sites listed nationwide, 12 are within the project area or in proximity to it. A small selection of sites is recognized in the



archaeological record, and these refer to 18th-century structures and include and form part of the Great South Wall. There are no archaeological sites within Alexandra Basin. There is some overlap between the heritage databases, and these locations are highlighted in Table 12.3.

Navigation

The origins of the modern port date to the 18th century with the foundation of the Ballast Office in 1707. The committee of directors, appointed by the City Council, initiated a long-term process of land-reclamation. The initial work focussed on the area upriver of the current project area, and consisted of the construction of the North Wall (1710-1718), facing the river channel, and the East Wall (1718-1729), running northwards along the line of the present day East Wall Road (Appendix 12, Figure 12.3). These constructions provided a tidal barrier behind which extensive land reclamation could take place in what was known as the ‘North Lotts’, a process that lasted until the early part of the 19th century and significantly extended the land mass on the north side of the River Liffey. A total of 263 plots of land were created and sold by the City Council, ranging in size from three-and-a-half acres to one acre.8

In addition, the board was responsible for a number of initiatives to improve anchorage within Dublin Bay, as the bay was susceptible to shifting sand bars, frequent squalls and high winds. In certain wind conditions the approach to the River Liffey was considered un-navigable. In response, the board instigated a major programme of engineering works that included dredging and widening the approach channel to Dublin (1707); construction of an embankment between the City and Ringsend (1711); and building the Great South Wall, begun in 1716 and designed to protect shipping from south to south-easterly gales. The wall also prevented the sands from the South Bull and Ringsend Spit from encroaching into the approach channel. The wall was completed by 1786 and runs 5km eastwards from the harbour at Ringsend to its terminus at Poolbeg Light house (Appendix 12, Figure 12.3). The initial structure was formed using timber piles with gravel in-fill, later being replaced by a cut-stone (granite) revetment. The granite was quarried near Dalkey and shipped in barges across Dublin Bay. The wall is an archaeological monument (Appendix 12.1 DAHG, Sites and Monuments Record, DU019-02902) as is the fort on Pigeon House Road (DU019-027) and the battery on the south wall (DU019-028).

By 1786, an Act of the Irish Parliament passed responsibility for the reclamation work from the Ballast Office to the Corporation for Preserving and Improving the Port of Dublin (the Ballast Board). While the Ballast Board oversaw the conclusion of the reclamation works, largely completed by 1838, it also initiated several developments within the port area. This included the construction of a new Custom House in 1791; Custom House Dock in 1796 (DU18-020564A); a boat-building/repair yard and Patent Slipway (completed in 1833 and recorded on the 1837 Ordnance Survey 6-inch map, Figure 12.4 in Appendix 12.1). The construction of Dublin’s first dry-dock was completed in 1860. Prior to these constructions, the majority of the port trade took place on the south side of the river, however, the establishment of the Custom House and associated quayside structures facilitated a lasting shift in port development to the north side.

The most significant development instigated by the Ballast Board was the construction of the North Bull Wall. The wall was constructed on recommendations made by Captain William

8 J. W. De Courcy, Anna Liffey. The River of Dublin, (O’Brien Press, Dublin, 1988), p. 47.



Bligh, following his survey of Dublin Bay in 1800. Shifting sands and the presence of large sand bars hindered larger vessels from accessing the port. It was also clear that shallows persisted east of the Poolbeg light house, requiring deep-drafted vessels to remain outside the protection of the South Wall until high water permitted them over the Dublin Bar. Bligh was critical of the dredging practices of the time, and had encouraged consideration of a north wall that would run parallel to the Great South Wall, to limit sediment build-up within the harbour and create a natural scouring effect that would eventually deepen the approach-channel. Bligh’s wall was aligned to present a funnel shape arrangement of training walls, expanding from c. 700 feet in width at Ringsend to more than 2000 feet wide at the Poolbeg light.9 He advised the construction of a smooth wall, uninterrupted by changes in direction or protruding steps or other features that might interrupt and reduce the speed of water flow, as he believed the works at Pigeon House harbour on the South Wall were prone to doing.

It is perhaps within this context that mention can be made of a series of leases that survive, relating to an Oyster bed at Poolbeg.10 Dating between 1705 and 1832, the leases provide rights to the Oysters to named individuals of the city. The formulaic nature of the leases extended the rights all along the river:

All that their right to the fishing of the River Ann Liffey and Poolbeg from the millstone near Island Bridge eastwards with the city liberty…with the full of three years…to pay yearly…£80 sterling by two even and equal half-yearly payments, that is to say, on every 29th day of March…and also yielding and giving in each year to the Lord Mayor and Sheriff…two salmon each or twenty shillings to each of them in lieu thereof according to ancient custom at the election of the said lord mayor and sheriffs.11

As part of the lease, the lessors were required to permit the free citizens of the city to fish on their fishery with their boats and nets, provided such fishing was for private use and not for sale. The lease of 1832 provides a map that shows the location of the oyster bed. It occupied a 262x262 yard area occupying 13 acres, 3 roods and 13 perches, and lay immediately outside the retaining wall of the harbour at Pigeon House Fort.12 This places the fishery directly within approach channel. Water depths or soundings are not provided in any of the leases, but one can imagine how such features would contribute frustration to a marine engineer seeking to create an efficient water-scour flow along the Liffey to aid shipping. The remains of the fishery would have disappeared long ago as a result of dredging activities and development activities on the site.

Bligh’s proposals for his north wall and for improvements along the South Wall were not accepted, but in their place the Ballast Board approved an existing idea to construct a training wall from Clontarf seawards in the direction of Poolbeg. This had the advantage of including Clontarf in developments relating to the future of the Port, a position that Clontarf had long enjoyed. In contrast, Bligh’s proposal would have excluded Clontarf most directly from the Port, as his wall would have been built directly across any natural ingress through the sand flats that served the outlying village. The Great North Wall, or the North Bull wall, was built between 1819 and 1824 under the direction of George Halpin, inspector of works for the Ballast Board. The works were deemed successful, when it was found that the channel was

9 Daly, Captain Bligh in Dublin’, p. 30. 10 The records survive among the Expired Leases 1462-1869, that form part of the Dubln City Archives, and date to 1705, 1790, 1795, 1799, 1803 and 1832, references exp/1252, exp/1151a, exp/1151, exp/1152b, exp/1152, and exp/1152c respectively. 11 Exp1151 (1795). 12 Exp 1152c (1832).



deepened in places by 20 feet and that the Dublin Bar had been pushed 5,000 feet seawards by 1828, and a further 1,500 feet seawards by 1856.13 A near contemporary source by the assistant engineer of the Dublin Port and Docks Board describes the 19th-century observations and details, and provides useful insight to the depth of dredging and scour achieved at the time.14 From 1814, the Port began to use steam dredging as well, and this more mechanized process began to replace the manual dredging operations with a more efficient system. Over time, sediment accumulated along the side of the North Bull wall to form the present-day Bull Island. As indicated in Table 2.2 of this chapter, it is possible to chart the progress of dredging campaigns within the Approach Channel since 1800, and it appears that an accumulated depth of c. 5.8m of sediment has been removed since then.

The structures and features relating to the North and South Bull walls are sites that retain archaeological and architectural heritage protection. Works associated with the present project will take account of their cultural heritage aspects.

The Deepwater Port

With the principal issues associated with navigation along the approach channel being dealt with, attention came to focus on the port facilities. Shipping had been moored along the city quays when tidal access permitted, and the river banks from as far upriver at Gravel Walk Slip/Blackhall Place, included small inlets that served for boat-building and repair areas. The development of quays as we know them today removed these earlier sites, partly to assist in the vision to provide an efficient fluvial conduit to aid in self-scouring and reduce siltation. It was also the case that with the development of steam ships and the demand for increased sea traffic, such older resources were no longer adequate to meet the needs of the modern age, and attention was turned to the as-yet undeveloped north side of the Liffey at East Quay as the principal location for attending to ship repair and maintenance.

As revealed through the early maps, the process of establishing landing facilities and port operations can be traced from the mid-1800s. The lighthouse recorded on the 1837 Ordnance Survey map was established on the North Quay at the ‘Point’ in 1809, marking the first ‘hard point’ on the north side of the channel, directing traffic towards the quays. In 1826, a Scottish shipbuilder, Thomas Morton, was engaged to build a slipway capable of handling 300-tonne weight vessels. He had recently patented such a design, for winching vessels up along an iron framework. His slip was built parallel with the East Quay, and is recorded but not named on the 1837 map. Morton was commissioned again and built a second ‘Patent slip’ in 1832 that was capable of lifting 900-tonne vessels. That site was located some distance from the East Quay, and a small pier was built to connect with the more massive slip, as is recorded on the 1837 map. Both of Morton’s slips were infilled in the 1990s. In association with the slips, a 30m-long timber graving frame was constructed on the sands, to which smaller vessels could be attached and serviced when they would be exposed at Low Water. The frame was extended to 60m in length in 1847, before being built on as part of the North Quay Extension some years later.15

These were early stages in the development of the port facilities, whose plans quickly grew in design and ambition. Some indication of a wider enclosure is indicated on the 1837 Ordnance

13 Daly, Captain Bligh in Dublin’, p. 32. 14 I. J. Mann, River Bars. Notes on the causes of their formation, and on their treatment by ‘induced tidal scour’, with a description of the successful reduction by the method of the bar at Dublin. London, 1881. 15 De Courcy 1996; O’Connor 2013, p. 42.



Survey map, which shows a structured shingle breakwater to the east of the second patent slip. Any plans to further enclose a sea area for the port began to be realized when it was decided to extend a retaining wall 700m east along what became Tolka Quay. The works reclaimed land between the retaining wall and the second patent slip, providing a wide working platform. The ‘Breakwater’ formed the north side of North Wall Basin. A second retaining bank was built to form its east side, enclosing a sea area that was dredged to allow steam ships moor safely alongside. The area became known as Halpin’s Pond, after the Port’s engineer, and was later absorbed into the larger deepwater facility of Alexandra Basin. The interior of the North Wall Basin was populated by a timber wharf, to facilitate steam packet ships. This later became the ‘Crossberth’. To retain a connection with the development of the basin, the ABR Project will refer to the new quay where the Ro-Ro jetty is to be located as the ‘Crossberth Quay’.

The demands on the patent slips became such that it was clear a new facility was required, and in 1853 William Dargan was commissioned to construct what became Graving Dock 1, on the reclaimed land that formed part of the breakwater. The construction project was the first significant task the young assistant engineer, Bindon Blood Stoney, was assigned to. The dock was built 410 feet long and 80 feet wide. It was constructed using granite ashlar blocks to form a stepped façade down its sides, and was curved at its north end. The dock was dewatered in four hours using steam pumps, which were later replaced by an electrically-powered facility that achieved the result in one hour. A dedicated pump house was built on the east side of the dock to house the electric equipment. The dock was closed in 1989, and filled in in 2008 under archaeological supervision. The pump house still stands (Appendix 12.1, DCIHR 18-08-101) and will be refurbished as part of the ABR Project as part of the re-opening of the Graving Dock (DCIHR 18-08-081)

Through the Dublin Ballast Board, the port continued to infill and extend its growing facility, but the single most ambitious aspect was undoubtedly the development of the deepwater berth, whose opening in 1885 by the Prince and Princess of Wales, the later King Edward VII and his Queen, gave their name to Alexandra Basin. The footprint for Alexandra Basin absorbed the preceding developments. It was a grand design that extended from the East Quay on its north side eastwards along what is now Tolka Quay Road to the Eastern Breakwater, that was built between 1858 and 1884 on what is now Breakwater Road at its eastern extent, where the Basin ran south towards the channel. The Port Control centre occupies the riverside terminus of the Eastern Breakwater. This large enclosed space was to be retained by an extension of North Wall Quay, and the interior was dredged to permit depths of 38 feet (11.5m) at High Tide and 24 feet (7.3m) at Low Tide, giving ample access to shipping at the time. The works were overseen by the young assistant engineer, Bindon Blood Stoney, who had answered an advertisement in 1856, to help the port’s work and that of its Inspector of Works, or chief engineer, George Halpin.16 Stoney had a radical idea to build the principal works on the deepwater berth using Portland cement to help construct foundation blocks, which would be floated into position and lowered to the seabed. His ideas were in contrast to the traditional method of using cofferdams and manually laying stonework within. In 1861, when the ideas were developed, he met with opposition from his senior, but Halpin’s retirement in 1862 left the way open for Stoney and the Ballast Board to work together on the new design. When the

16 Stoney’s works are well studied and commented on. What follows is taken from these sources, and is supplemented by reference to drawings in the Ports Archives. Stoney’s primary biographer is Ronald Cox, Bindon Blood Stoney, Biography of a Port Engineer (Dublin Institute of Engineers, 1990). Other studies draw on Cox’s work and include: Dictionary of Irish Architects, 1720-1940, Irish Architectural Archive online source http://www.dia.ie/; Cormac F. Lowth, ‘The Dublin Port diving bell’, The International Journal of Diving History, Volume 3, Number 1, July 2010, available online via http://lugnad.ie/; Turtle Bunbury, http://www.turtlebunbury.com/published/published_books/docklands/heroes/pub_books_docklands_stoney.html.



Ballast Board was reconstituted in 1869 as the Dublin Port and Docks, Stoney was its chief engineer, a post he held until his retirement in 1898.

Stoney’s contribution to the Port was significant. He was responsible for designing improved dredging techniques; for rebuilding works on the Essex and Carlisle Bridges; and the construction of the Beresford (or Butt) Swing Bridge. He is also associated with converting half the quays along the Liffey into deep-water quays. His work on the quays was informed by the novel method of underwater construction which he had first advocated in 1861. Works got underway in 1871. Massive concrete blocks, weighing 350 tons each, were made on a block wharf located on the north side of the basin, and then moved to their destination by means of specially designed floating shears. The blocks were lowered into position on the river bed, which had been previously levelled by workmen using a special diving bell which Stoney devised for this purpose, and which survives today as part of the street architecture on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay.

Stoney’s innovation was not the foundation blocks per se, but rather the size and scale of the blocks he designed and used. Harland and Wolff in Belfast built the shear float, and Grendon and Co. of Drogheda built the diving bell. The foundation blocks were cast on the specially built block wharf and allowed to cure for several weeks. Large cast iron girders were incorporated into the bottom of the blocks and wrought iron lifting bars were attached to these. Large granite stones were used in the construction to bulk out the cast concrete. The stones were edge-set side-by-side. Large rebates were cast into the blocks to take stone facing blocks for the new piers and in some instances, part of the stone facing work was completed on the blocks while they were still on dry land. Each block measured 21’4” wide at its base. It seems that there was some variation is height, between 26’ and 29’ high, and each block had a stepped profile in cross-section that was recessed by 3’6” at the rear, and was of varied height, between 9’6”and 13’.17

In preparation for the foundation blocks, the overburden would be dredged prior to the positioning of the diving bell. A six-man crew would work inside the bell, levelling the ground surface to ensure that the caissons would be lie accurately. Building records show cross sections through the as-built quay, and in some instances the section indicates a bed of gravel underneath the caissons. This suggests that the divers may have purpose laid gravel beds where necessary in advance of the caisson being dropped.18

The shear float would then lower the foundation blocks in place. Grooves cast into the blocks were subsequently filled with concrete to key them together. The blocks were laid in parallel rows where berthage was required on either side of the new quay walls and space between was filled with spoil from the dredging operations. The walls above water were then built up in

17 Port Archives Ms 8415 provides an elevation drawing of the North Wall Quay Extension, showing the progress of building between December 1871 and June 1880, and including two cross-sections, at 100 feet and 700 feet along the build respectively. Ms 7933 shows an example of a caisson in cross section from the north face of the quay, dated 1875. 18 Port Archives Ms 7096 (K1047) ‘North Quay Extension, progress of wall sections’, includes a range of cross-sections with a key-plan to indicate where the sections relate to. Two sections with defined gravel beds are located close to the terminus of Stoney’s quay, sections D-E and E-F respectively. In other instances, the caisson is shown lying on an undifferentiated bed.



the conventional manner, and details survive in the Port Archives showing the level of detail given to the granite facades.19

The method was used for the extension of the North Wall Quay and for the foundations of the North Bull lighthouse. Known as the North Wall Quay Extension, construction commenced in 1871 and was terminated in 1885, when some 700m length of the quay was built. The necessities of the port demanded attention to other matters, leaving the North Wall Quay Extension unfinished, and with its tell-tale irregular terminus. The quay was nevertheless very much in use, and the North Quay lighthouse was re-established at its terminus. The North Wall Quay Extension was completed in the 20th century, as part of preparations for the Eucharistic Congress of 1932. By this time, a new form of caisson design had been developed for works in the Port, and it fell to the then engineer Joseph Mallagh to complete. The caissons were somewhat simpler in design but effective. The caissons were cast in concrete and, floated into position before being filled up and sunk, to give a solid quay frontage. The North Quay lighthouse was moved into its current position at the terminal of North Wall Quay Extension in 1937.

Alexandra Basin has remained a key focus of the Port as it has continued to develop. It has served as the principal landing place for numerous events, some of which have wider narratives across the city, including the Dublin Lockout 1913-14; as a marshalling yard for British Army needs during WWI and during the Easter Rising; it was from here that the British Army withdrew from Dublin in 1922; and it was here that ships associated with the Eucharistic Congress in 1932 berthed.20 In this, the port of Dublin has remained at the centre of important economic and cultural moments, the dynamic of which is embodied in the ever changing and growing nature of the port. Alexandra Quay was built in the 1920s (placed along the north side of Alexandra Basin) and Alexandra Quay East, Ocean Pier, and a number of Oil Jetties were completed by 1955. In addition, a new phase of reclamation works was initiated at this time and pushed the boundaries of the port northwards, along the East Wall, towards the Clontarf shoreline. Further reclamation works to the east define the current extent of Dublin Port.

Within the present study, the North Wall Quay Extension is a primary focus for development works. The Port archives retain considerable detail about the construction of North Wall Quay Extension, as well as information on the layout of the marshalling yards that were subsequently built on its surface. It remains to be described in detail, as an archaeological and architectural feature, and such work will be carried out prior to works proceeding as part of the current proposals. Further detail on the North Wall Quay Extension and it particular its importance from an industrial archaeological heritage perspective is provided in Section 12.8 of this Chapter of the EIS.

12.2.4 Historic Shipwreck Inventory

Dublin Bay and the approaches to Dublin Port are considered to be a seascape that retains very high archaeological potential. The shallow sandy reaches of the Bay have proved hazardous to shipping, and during the later medieval period were considered problematic enough to limit access of deepwater craft to the city’s quays. The Dublin Bar, which forms across the entrance to the harbour, has been a principal concern for channel improvement

19 Port Archives Ms 7929 ‘North Quay Extension. Section of river wall showing small blocks and ashlar work’, dated 1879. 20 A more detailed account of recent events associated with Dublin Port and Alexandra Basin is described in O’Connor, ‘Cultural heritage’, pp 48-70.



schemes, and it was during the 18th century that the Ballast Office was able to marshal the resources to establish the North and South Walls. The current navigation channel passes the bar east of Buoys 5 and 6.

The number of recorded shipwrecking events associated with the wider Bay area and the approaches to the Port approximates 600, of which almost 300 are associated with Dublin Bar. The events are based on historic accounts that have only been systematically noted since c. 1750 AD.21 It represents the single greatest concentration of documented shipwreck incidents in Ireland (which are believed to number more than 13,000 in total), and highlights the importance of the Bay and the country’s principal port. The details provided in the Inventory describe the type of vessel, the journey it foundered on, and information on the ultimate plight of the vessel and its crew, where possible. In describing the wrecking event, the records will locate the incident in relation to the nearest headland or other topographic marker where known. This is not a record of where the wreckage lies, however, since the historic records generally only deal with the vessel before it sank. Such finer details emerge from other sources, such as fishermen’s’ records of snag points and diver’s records of sites located under water.

The number of known wreck sites is much smaller. Thirty wreck and wreckage locations can be charted within the area of the Approach Channel to the Port (Figure 12.10, Appendix 12.1). These include: 12 wrecks that are recorded on historic maps (including eight wrecks recorded on a ‘Map of Clontarf, the Estate of John Vernon’, dated to the 1790s, and four recorded on Captain Bligh’s map of Dublin Bay in 1803); six entries of seabed anomalies detected during the Irish National Seabed Survey; and nine recorded locations for wreckage associated with the loss of the Kilkenny cargo ship in 1991. There are also four instances where timber wreckage has been recorded in recent times (wreck references W01544, W01465, W01540, W01734). Wrecksite W01734, known as the ‘Ringsend Wreck’ after its nearest named place of loss, was subject to archaeological recovery, and timbers have been redeposited on the seabed at known and recorded locations following analysis.

A new wrecksite has been recorded close to the harbour entrance and southeast of Poolbeg lighthouse (Appendix 12.1 W018522). It was located during marine geophysical survey carried out as part of the proposals for the Ringsend Outfall project. The site is well-defined in a multi-beam data trace, which shows a clearly shaped linear wreck, perhaps with its bow facing southeast, and with an indication of linear elements along its side, suggestive of planking. While the wrecksite will not be directly impacted by the ABR Project, consideration is given to it in the event that there may be indirect impacts resulting from shifts in sedimentation as a result of the proposed dredging works.

There are five instances of known wreck locations that occur within the proposed impact area for the ABR Project, as well as W018522 that occurs just outside the survey area (Table 12.4, Figure 12.7 in Appendix 12.1). One wreck location occurs within Alexandra Basin West, and refers to a poorly defined wrecksite that was observed during seabed surveys in a location that has since been buried by infill beside the Lead-in jetty. As part of the ABR works, the fill will be removed, and this work may re-expose the seabed at the recorded wreck location.

21 The source of this information is collated in the Historic Shipwreck Inventory of Ireland, maintained by the National Monuments Section at the Department of Arts, Heritage and Local Government. The records for Dublin are published by the Department in Karl Brady, Shipwreck Inventory of Ireland. Louth, Meath, Dublin and Wicklow (Stationary Office, Dublin 2008), pp 215-298.



The remaining four sites that occur within the ABR area are located close together at the southeastern extent of the dredge area (wreck references W01551-W01554). All four sites are described in a similar manner, being 3m long, 3m wide and standing 3m above the seabed. Multi-beam survey of the seabed some years ago failed to highlight any indication of wreckage in the four locations. It is possible that the sites have become buried by sediment, and it is also possible that the coordinates recording their positions are inaccurate as they are historic observations noted in early seabed surveys carried out by the UK Hydrographic Survey office. The positioning employed in those early surveys is often subject to refinement in modern surveys. All four locations will be subject to dredging as part of the ABR Project.



Table 12.4 Recorded wreck sites within and immediately adjacent to the proposed impact area

Name Detail Latitude Longitude Easting ITM Northing ITM

GSI 162 Geophysical anomaly, now buried under fill material introduced to Alexandra Basin West in 2008, beside the Lead-in jetty. The fill will be removed as part of the ABR Project, potentially re-exposing this features

053 20 54.24 006 13 22.26 718323.519 734603.239

W01551 INSS G160, possible wreck, measuring 3m long, 3m wide, 3m high off the seabed, in a general depth of 9m. Location lies within impact and survey area and is 160m S of W01552.

053 19 55.48 006 05 21.48 727263.029 733016.95

W01552 INSS G161a possible wreck, measuring 3m long, 3m wide, 3m high off the seabed, in a general depth of 8m. Location lies within impact and survey area. Lies 15m S of W01553.

053 20 01.572 006 05 21.984 727248.743 733204.908

W01553 INSS G161b possible wreck, measuring 3m long, 3m wide, 3m high off the seabed, in a general depth of 8m. Location lies within impact and survey area. Lies 30m S of W01554.

053 20 02.436 006 05 22.524 727238.043 733231.219

W01554 INSS G161c possible wreck, measuring 3m long, 3m wide, 3m high off the seabed, in a general depth of 8m. Location lies within impact and survey area

053 20 03.552 006 05 22.02 727246.366 733266.079

W018522 Lies 350m SE of Poolbeg Lighthouse. It is a clearly defined linear shape with both ends intact and perhaps the bow section facing Southeast. Short linears distinguishable on the side of the vessel may indicate timbering

723444 733771

Source: DAHG. Coordinates given in Lat/Long, converted to ITM



12.2.5 Licensed Archaeological Work

Certain archaeological work has been carried out (Appendix 12.1, Licensed archaeological intervention; Figure 12.7). The work has included as survey of the shipwreck W01465, located north of the Approach Channel and east of Terminal 5 (Licence 08R497), and various small-scale berth improvements works have been monitored, revealing natural substrate underlying reclamation fill (for example at Berth 50A, licence 04E560, and Berth 51A, licence 01E288). Dredging work in advance of Poolbeg Marina was also monitored, revealing modern material over grey silt substrate (04E740). Archaeological work has monitored larger-scale dredging programmes. In 2001, maintenance dredging by the Port of Dublin along the extent of the Approach Channel did not reveal material of archaeological significance (04E1004). In contrast, capital dredging in the same year associated with the cross-bay wastewater pipeline between Ringsend and Sutton, recovered 229 objects, many of which were former ships’ timbers (01E283, 01E358). A first phase of dredging focussed on the diverted shipping channel to accommodate the larger project. 109 objects were recovered in that episode. In a later stage of work, a shipwreck was discovered near Sutton Creek. The cross-bay pipeline was buried 4-8m below current bed level, and crosses beneath the Approach Channel between Buoys 5 and 6.

Overall, the archaeological work completed to date helps to confirm aspects of the Port’s development that are indicated in the cartographic and historical records. They also demonstrate the high archaeological potential that lies in those parts of the bay which have not been disturbed previously by dredging. The areas of greatest potential for new discoveries appear to be the sand flats and sand bars that populate larger areas of the Bay, as emphasised by the recent observation of the new wrecksite recorded close to the Poolbeg lighthouse. The dredgings conducted previously within the Port and along the Approach Channel will have effectively removed these surface deposits that elsewhere retain shipwreck. This helps to qualify the archaeological low risk associated with new dredging within the Approach Channel.

12.2.6 Site Investigations data

Terrestrial Site Investigations

A programme of site investigations was carried out on the quaysides within Alexandra Basin and at Berths 52/53 (Appendix 12.2). Of twelve core locations identified, investigations were possible at eight sites, three of which were positioned on the North Wall Quay Extension. The purpose of the investigations was to ascertain the nature of the stratigraphic structure of the materials below the present-day surfaces. An archaeological inspection of the site investigations was conducted on 4 November 2013, while Core C1 was being sunk on North Quay Extension.

The project drawings dating to Stoney’s era indicate that the height of the quay above the seabed was approximately 13m. Cores C1, C1a, C3 and C4 were positioned along North Quay Extension. C1 was located close to the terminus of North Wall Quay Extension, on an area that would have been reclaimed in the late 1920s to facilitate the completion of the quay by Joseph Mallagh. Reinforced steel was encountered at a depth of 7m and terminated the investigation. C1a was able to penetrate more deeply, to 11.5m using the shell and auger borehole, and to 24m using a rotary core. It appears that the shell and auger was able to penetrate through to the base of the quay, or close to it, and revealed a depth of spoil throughout. This is to be expected as the core is located quite centrally within the quay. The rotary core was able to achieve a depth of 24m, and revealed a sequence of layers of clay and



gravel over silty clay that at 22m encountered a c. 1m thick dark clay, which lies above gravelly clay with the occasional boulder. This may be a naturally occurring sequence, and the presence of clay at such a depth could indicate an outwash layer of clay deposited by the river in former times.

C3 was located midway along North Wall Quay Extension, and within the footprint of Stoney’s work. The central location of the core within the quay is too far removed from either façade to encounter the foundation caissons. It is understood that the space between the foundation blocks was filled with dredged spoil. The core revealed landfill in the upper 7m, which overlay layers of silt and sand that continued to c. 17m. This stratigraphy suggests that dredged spoil was used to fill the lower levels of the quay, but that more formal building rubble was sought for the upper half or third of the quay. The clay and clay with cobbles that was encountered below 17m may be considered naturally deposited fluvial layers.

C4 was positioned close to the south-facing façade of North Wall Quay Extension, well within the footprint of Stoney’s work, and where one might expect to encounter the foundation caissons. There was no clear indication of the foundation caisson, but it is noted that the upper 6.5m was made up of relatively light fill material, including clay rich sand and gravel and sand and cobbles. This overlay a gravel with cobbles and boulders, which continued to the base of core at 14.2m. The cross-sections of Stoney’s caissons indicate a stepped recess at their rear side that could be up to c. 8m deep. It may be that what C4 reveals is the layers of fill added above the mass concrete foundation. If this is the case, the presence of a gravel with cobbles and boulders may indicate that the concrete block has deteriorated.

C5 confirmed the nature of the filled that was dumped in the recent past at this location beside the Lead-in Jetty as reclamation works.

C6, located on the west end of Alexandra Quay, reveals the extent of fill material used in the construction of the quay. The image is similar to the results from C8, located at the east end of the quay. In this instance it was possible to penetrate more deeply, and the layers beneath the quay appear to correspond with estuarine clays and gravels, as one might expect to have formed part of the sand flat that underlies the Port area in this location.

C10 was positioned close to the terminus of Ocean Pier. It was not able to penetrate deeper than 7m, and so is unlikely to have achieved the base of the quay structure. Nevertheless, the presence of gravel and cobbles below c. 4m, and building rubble above, suggests a similar construction technique to that observed on North Wall Quay Extension, where dredged spoil serves as a foundation with rubble providing a firmer underlay beneath the working surface.

C11 was located at Berths 52/53. In this instance, it is clear that the reclamation has built up the current surfaces from the natural seabed, some 11.8m below surface, which is formed from sands and gravels.

The site investigations have revealed a sequence of information that confirms aspects of the constructions used in the building up of the quays. No issues or material of archaeological concern were noted.



12.3 TERRESTRIAL INSPECTION

The proposed terrestrial working area of the ABR Project was inspected. The results are presented in Appendix 12.3 and are described below.

12.3.1 Berths 52/53

Berths 52/53 occupy a basin of newly reclaimed land at the east end of the Port area referred to as Terminal 5. Ro-Ro ramps 7 and 8 are situated at the head of the inlet, to the North. Two stretches of mass concrete-constructed quay walls exist within the inlet; one forming the terminus on the southwest side, the other on the east side where it serves as Berth 53. Elsewhere, the sides of the inlet are represented by a rockarmour finish. A line of dolphin ramps supported on concrete pile-clusters extends into the basin from the rock armour on the west side, presenting a suitable platform for Berth 52. The southeast terminus of the inlet south of Berth 53 is defined by roughly-formed rockarmour. There are no archaeologically-relevant or architecturally/industrially-relevant heritage issues associated with the standing remains.

12.3.2 Alexandra Basin West

Many of the features associated with the early development of the port area adjacent to East Wall Road have been absorbed within port development works. The area today accommodates the main Port offices building, and Terminals 3 and 4. In 2008, Graving Dock No. 1 was filled in, and a lobe of sea area within the basin to the south beside the lead-in jetty was filled with rubble. The quays that form the working Basin today are a mixture of old and new elements, most of which remains in constant use.

Despite the 20th-century developments which have buried areas of the early port, there are elements that survive at ground level. In addition to the pump house used to accommodate the electrically-powered pump for dewatering Graving Dock No. 1, there are lesser features visible along and inside the East Wall Road boundary wall, where coping stones remain exposed on the surface and trace the lines of some of the early quays, while iron rings and related ‘furniture’ still attached to the boundary wall, reflect some of the former mooring arrangements. It is understood that none of these lesser elements will be impacted upon by the ABR Project. A detailed record of their location, and a description of their form, would provide a useful gazetteer of heritage elements within the port area.


Since Joseph Mallagh’s completion of North Wall Quay Extension in 1931, the quay has been in constant use but perhaps the single greatest impact has been the Port’s works of the 1980s which resulted in the construction of Terminal 3, as this would have buried a substantial section of the quay on its basin side, and this section remains concealed from view today.

The exposed facades of the quay survive largely untouched, with some sections of repair or adaptation clearly visible. The original mooring-rings set into the quay walls are retained, and the elegantly-cut stone steps are still in use. The granite blocks of the quay wall are however in various states of deterioration. On the quay’s deck area, the coping stones survive in place along most of the quay edge, and there are the tracks of former rail lines visible at the west end of the quay that formerly ran along the entire quay to assist in loading and unloading activities. The interior surface of the deck is otherwise masked in a cobble-lock brick that



conceals indications of earlier features on the quay’s working surface, such as the Goods Sheds and the Revenue Watch House that are clearly recorded on the 1912-era Ordnance Survey maps.

The North Quay light house is of steel construction and is accessible. It retains an ocular on its first floor level that magnifies a set view across the river channel. Various apparatus associated with its early use occupies the interior of the Light house. When the Light house was moved the short distance from the former terminal of the quay to its current position in 1937, it is understood that the structure was moved on a light rail. There is no indication of the rail today, but it is possible that this is concealed by the cobble-lock brickwork that covers the deck area.

12.4 MARINE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

12.4.1 Project Strategy

The principal aim of the marine geophysical survey was to acquire detailed insight to the nature of the seabed and its sediments within the development area.

Dublin Bay may be regarded as retaining the very high archaeological potential for shipwreck discovery. It may also retain indications of palaeo surfaces and inundated shorelines.

The marine geophysical survey would help to assess the archaeological risk and to highlight particular areas of archaeological potential in advance of development works, so that the archaeological risk can be managed.

The combination of side-scan sonar, magnetometry and sub-bottom or seismic survey would provide a robust suite of devices to detect anomalies on the seabed and within its sedimentary levels.

The site-specific survey work would complement existing knowledge that is derived in part from desktop survey and from mutli-beam survey conducted by the Irish National Seabed Survey.

The survey specifications are informed by the requirements of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.22 Condition 3 observed:

Due to the high archaeological potential of the area, it is recommended that the geophysical survey is carried out at a high resolution and at line spacings of not less than 20m. The geophysical survey should include side scan sonar, magnetometer and sub-bottom profiling systems. Anomalies identified in the surveys should be dived by an archaeologist licensed under the National Monuments Acts 1930-200423

22 As set out in correspondence reference G Pre00148/2013, dated14 May 2013, between the DAHG and RPS. 23 G Pre00148/2013, condition 3.



12.4.2 Constraints on archaeological method

The survey area is a busy Port area. Site-work needed to be programmed in conjunction with ship movements and was also subject to weather conditions, which were monitored daily by the marine hydrographer in liaison with the Port Operations Centre.

12.4.3 Project Team

The survey work and data processing was conducted by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd (HS). ADCO liaised with HS to ensure conditions were met during survey work. ADCO monitored the survey work directly by conducting a series of site inspection visits. ADCO reviewed the primary data files once HS completed processing, and prepared an archaeological interpretation of the geo-data acquired.

12.4.4 Equipment List

Navigation

Trimble AgDGPS 132. This unit provides sub-metre differential position accuracy. The L-band satellite receiver uses a Trimble developed, sensitive design to provide coverage across the entire satellite footprint.

Bathymetry

The bathymetry data for inside the existing navigational channel is derived from the most recent bathymetric survey (June-July 2013) carried out by HS for Dublin Port. HS proposed to carry out a bathymetry survey in conjunction with the sub-bottom survey in areas that lie outside the existing navigational channel. Survey lines would be along the same sub-bottom profile lines.

Sounding would be obtained by ODOM hydrotrac echo sounder, frequency 200 KHz outputting both digital and analogue data using a side-mounted transducer. The instrument outputs depth to the nearest centimetre and logs raw depths to Hypack. Calibration of the ODOM was by bar-check over the full water depth at the time of the survey. A bar check was undertaken prior to and post each day’s surveying. During calibration, variation in water velocities are accounted for, which are controlled by water temperature and salinity.

Tidal Recording

HS used a Valeport Model 740 tide gauge. The instrument records to the nearest millimetre. The tide gauge is calibrated by measuring from a TBM to the waterline over varying tidal conditions. The gauge is considered to be a very stable instrument and the HS gauges are set to record every 5 minutes.

Side-scan sonar

The side-scan sonar survey was obtained using the C-Max digital, dual frequency, sonar. Data was logged using a Rugged CM2 Sonar transceiver connected to a PC running MaxView



acquisition software. The DGPS signal was interfaced in Maxview and Hypack survey software.

Magnetometer

HS used a Marine Magnetics Seaspy Overhauser sensor magnetometer to undertake the survey. The Overhauser sensors have a high absolute accuracy of 0.2nT. The magnetometer was interfaced with the DGPS.

Seismic/Sub-bottom Profiling

Sub-bottom information was obtained using a Boomer-based system (C-Boom). It operates with a dominant frequency of 1760Hz. All profile lines were interfaced with continuous dGPS output for accurate positioning. Data output is in digital SEG-Y format.

12.4.5 Operational

The survey was conducted using survey vessels and skippers provided by Dublin Port. A Marine Mammal Observer was employed by HS to conduct marine mammal observations during the survey work.

The surveys were conducted in two mobilizations: the first carried out the sub-bottom and bathymetric survey, which occurred between 06/06-03/07/2013; the second carried out the side-scan sonar and magnetometer surveys, which occurred between 15-19/07/2013.

ADCO monitored the on-site survey work on two occasions, on 28/06/2013 and on 18/07/2013.

The following data was provided to ADCO for review:

Side-scan sonar raw data

Magnetometer raw data

Sub-bottom raw data

Field-sheets for side-scan sonar, magnetometer and sub-bottom profile surveys

Project drawings HS99-1/13, and HS100-1/13, showing bathymetry data and tracklines

Project drawings HS71_13, showing side-scan sonar and magnetometer tracklines, magnetometer profiles, and sub-bottom profile tracklines.

The marine geophysical survey data acquired has been reviewed and assessed from an archaeological perspective.

12.4.6 Nature of the Record

The record is comprehensive. The data amounts to an intensive survey of the study area that meets the survey requirements. The survey has provided side-scan sonar overlap and the



ability to view the same areas of seabed from different directions. The survey has sought to maximize the potential to identify material that may retain archaeological interest.

12.4.7 Survey Grid

The area was surveyed comprehensively by Hydrograghic Surveys Ltd. The surveys were conducted in a manner that meets the 20m line-spacing requirement set by the DAHG. Maps showing the survey tracklines and details of the site work completed are all contained within Hydrogrpahic Survey’s report on the survey work of Summer 2013 (Hydrographic Surveys, 2013 Report no. PH 13003).

The side-scan sonar and magnetometry survey tracklines shared the same grid. A series of East-West-aligned survey lines formed the principal tracklines at 20m intervals, extending downstream from the East Link Bridge and out to sea at the survey terminus. North-South lines were set at 250m intervals to provide a sequence of perspectives at right angles to the principal lines. The survey was conducted in a ‘zig-zag’ method, extending along one axis for one survey line, and returning in the opposite direction along an adjacent survey line. For side-scan sonar work this technique has the advantage of recording the same areas of seabed from opposite directions. This method increases the possibility of identifying targets precisely and in imaging their shape and extent. The opportunity for further directional perspectives is provided by the crosslines. The range for side-scan survey was set at 50m. Combined with the 20m-line spacing and zig-zag method of data acquisition, the survey exceeds 100% coverage and overlap within the survey footprint.

The sub-bottom profile survey was conducted on a different grid, to maximize the observation of potential sedimentary contrasts on the seabed outside the training walls. The area that lies within the training wall is constrained by the training wall, and line orientation was parallel to the channel, with cross lines running perpendicular to the channel. The area that lies in open water east of the training wall had principal line orientation running perpendicular to the channel, and cross lines running parallel to the channel. This was to maximise the possibility of data recovery, since sedimentary variation tends to be at a maximum perpendicular to the shore. Sub-bottom profile survey was also carried out for geotechnical purposes at 50m intervals, aligned along the channel.

12.4.8 Bathymetry Survey

The bathymetry survey within Alexandra Basin West reveals a consistent depth of -8m CD to c. -9.5m CD (Chart Datum) in its main central area and along the Alexandra Quay West and Ocean Pier. The depths are somewhat shallower beneath the bulk jetty at c. -7m CD, while at the western end of the Basin they are c. -6m CD, and alongside North Quay Extension the depths are deepest at c. -7m CD at the Ro-Ro Ramp No. 4, and become progressively shallower as one proceeds East and out of the Basin, with depths reaching -4.4m CD at the terminus.

The main channel area reveals deeper depths alongside the principal quays, and shallower elsewhere, reflecting the recurrent dredging activities of the port. Below the East Link Bridge, water levels are comparatively shallow, varying between -6.7 and -7.2m CD on the north side of the channel, and rising to -2.1m CD and even shallower on the south side of the channel as far east as the Poolbeg Yacht Club. The activities of the Port take over eastwards, and depth across the channel varies between c. -8m and -9.5m CD. The bed is not entirely level but there is a consistency that approximates this. The central channel area is distinctly evident at -8m CD, with some deepening to -9m CD, while the slopes are clearly present with shallower



depths. The side slopes show localized steepening on the north side and also on the south side. Some shallowing is evident on the south side of the channel opposite Berth 45 and the Oil Tank Jetty where depths are in the -7m CD range, although there is a distinct deepening to -9m CD alongside the berth and jetty.

At the entrance to the harbour, the central channel drops to -10m CD, reflecting the intense fluvial dynamic at this point. The profile of the navigation channel is distinct proceeding eastwards, with a consistent depth of -9m CD progressing to -10m CD. A noticeable recess occurs at one location on the south side of the channel, west of No. 6 Buoy. Where the channel is aligned to the Southeast, between No. 3 and No. 4 Buoy, the central area of the channel deepens to -11m CD with a more restricted linear depth of -12m CD over a shorter strip. The average depth of -10m CD is re-established to the east. Where the survey area expands in width, reaching out beyond the eastern terminus of the navigation channel, the depths shallow progressively, with an area of c. -8m CD occurring at the southern perimeter of the survey area.

Overall, the bathymetry data reveals the imprint of the dredge depths required to date to service the activities within the port and to provide access to shipping along the navigation channel. The natural seabed levels immediately adjacent to the navigation channel are also recorded, and show the progressive deepening from -2m CD at Poolbeg Yact Club, to -4m CD outside the training walls, to -8m CD at the eastern limit of the survey area. While it is necessary to account for sedimentation processes as a contributory factor in establishing these shallow depths, the contrast with the dredged depths is in the order of c. 5m along much of the course of the navigation channel, and indicates the level of impact that has taken place already. At the eastern terminus, the impact has been less, in the order of 2m.

12.4.9 Side-scan Sonar Survey

Side-scan sonar survey is a key marine geophysical survey technique employed to acquire an image of the seabed surface and for detecting the presence of features or objects that may lie exposed on the surface. It is most useful for constructing an understanding of the surface layer of the seabed. It is less useful for gaining an understanding of the underlying deposits, since side-scan sonar is unable to detect features that lie underneath the covering seabed layer.

The sonar operates by emitting sonic pulses, which extend from below the device and reach across a swathe on either side that is set at a pre-determined range or distance from the device. The sonar can be operated at a variety of frequencies that are adjusted to suit the extent of coverage and the quality of the seabed images. The requirement of the present survey was for high resolution, which means that the device should be set to image a relatively narrow band of the seabed so that the data detected can be viewed in clear detail. The range was set at 50m. With the survey line-spacing of 20m, this resulted in multiple overlap, and a very comprehensive imaging of the seabed.

The side-scan sonar data reveals a consistent seabed type that is dominated by soft sand/mud, with consistent elements that suggest linear variations in the base mud, caused either by dredging or by propeller wash (Figures 6.8 – 6.9 in Appendix 12.4).

The survey highlights quay-side and Port-related features, such as jetties, piles and passing shipping (Figures 6.10 – 6.13 in Appendix 12.4). None of these elements represent archaeological features, but they have been included on occasion in Appendix 6.4, which includes a list of some 301 anomalies and features that are captured in the side-scan sonar traces (the observations are summarized in Table 12.5). The navigation buoys and channel



markers are clearly visible, and the sonar traces capture images of the same object on several occasions. The buoys are most often represented by indication of a mooring anchor, to which is attached to a length of cable or chain that lies on the seabed forming a sinuous plan.

Table 12.5 Summary of the nature of anomalies detected in the side-scan sonar survey

Item Number including multiple views

Number excluding multiple views

Number that require further consideration

Recorded anomalies that appear as obvious shipwreck material

0 0 0

Recorded anomalies that are considered to retain high archaeological potential

0 0 0

Recorded anomalies that are considered to retain medium archaeological potential

5 2 1

Recorded anomalies that are considered to retain low archaeological potential

297 184 119

Total 302 186 120

Source: Appendix 12.4.

There are no clearly or obviously defined anomalies indicative of shipwreck. There are no boat-shaped features lying on the seabed, and there are no obvious composite features indicative of areas of timber-framing suggestive of ship’s structure. Nor are there indications of fishtraps or related shore-based maritime exploitation within the proposed dredge area, such as kelp beds. This is not surprising given the extent of channel deepening that has occurred, and which can be quantified since 1800 (as described in Table 2.2 of this Chapter above).

One complex feature (reference 24_2 [i.e. survey line 24, anomaly 2]) was identified, other than obvious modern port-related items. It is a bow-shape cable array located on the north side of the navigation channel and just outside the proposed dredge impact area. It is not an archaeological feature, and is identified as a length of abandoned cable that formerly served the lighthouse buoy. It lies outside the proposed impact area, and requires no further assessment.

Particular attention was paid to the charted locations of recorded wreckage within the survey area, namely the positions of W01551-W01554, close to the south-eastern terminus of the dredge area. No indications of anomalies were observed (Figure 12.14 in Appendix 12.4). This supports the GSI’s own coverage of the seabed based on multi-beam survey. The sonar traces show a silty seabed with occasional indication of small rock, and some linear variation that is probably an exposure of underlying mud. There is no indication of clearly defined anomalies measuring 3m x 3m in size as recorded in the GSI’s historic datasets. Despite the absence of apparent anomalies in these four contiguous locations, further consideration should be given to this data to help to clarify the original record by additional seabed inspection.

There are a large number of features throughout the survey area that cannot be readily explained as artefacts of the modern port and its apparatus. These features include isolated



objects and sometimes quite small features on the seabed, as well as less well defined anomalies that may be localized mud formations but cannot be clearly identified as such from the data gathered. Where such features occur within the area proposed to be impacted by dredging, they constitute a body of anomalies that warrant further consideration. There are 120 of these anomalies, as summarized in Table 12.5 and as described in Appendix 12.4. They are distributed throughout the survey area and do not form particular or obvious spatial clusters or groupings (Figures 6.15 – 6.20 in Appendix 12.4).

Prior to a programme of dive inspection, a single target was considered to retain archaeological potential (anomaly 1_9). It is a well-defined rectangular feature on the sonar traces that measures c. 5m in length, is orientated East-West, and appears to have an associated area of scour. It is located within the Navigation Channel on its south side and downstream of Pigeon House Dock. It is shown on corresponding sonar traces (7_2, 17_1, 100_2, 159_3, 170_3), highlighting the fact that it is clearly defined. The location was also highlighted as a localized magnetometer anomaly (mg20_6), indicating the possibility that it retained a ferrous metal content. The clear definition of this feature warranted further assessment, which was completed as part of the dive inspections. That work, which is discussed in Section 12.5, did not observe an anomaly in the location. Instead it records a hard gravel surface, and concludes that the side-scan sonar anomaly 1_9 is a naturally formed feature and is not of archaeological significance.

A second anomaly is deemed to be of medium archaeological potential (19_1). It is defined as a linear feature that extends some 15m in length. It is also indicated on other traces (30_1, 37_7), where the linear element appears more complex, and it may represent a localized snag that has become festooned with netting and rope. There is no distinctive magnetic anomaly indicated here, suggesting that if it is an object there is no significant ferrous metal component. Dive inspection is scheduled to take place here when weather permits.

The remaining 118 features identified on the sonar traces within the proposed impact area are considered to be of low archaeological potential. They lack discerning features, and in instances appear to be localized mud formations, perhaps derived from propeller scour or from maintenance dredging. They are included because they stand out from the ambient seabed as being different but they are not considered to retain a high archaeological value. They cannot however be entirely removed from consideration based on the information to hand. Correspondence with the magnetometer and the sub-bottom profile surveys can add some clarification, and a programme of dive inspection is ongoing to provide further assessment (see Section 12.5).

12.4.10 Magnetometer Survey

The magnetometer is specifically designed to detect fluctuations in the background magnetic field. It can be a useful tool to chart variations in the underlying geology of an area of seabed that are revealed in large-scale and continuous shifts in the magnetic signature, measured in nanotesla (nT). It is also useful for detecting metal objects, which can be indicated as sharply-defined localized and relatively small-scale variations in the magnetic signature. In contrast to side-scan sonar, the magnetometer only acquires data from directly underneath the survey instrument; it does not have the swathe capability of sonar and consequently it is most useful to have closely-spaced survey lines, to maximize the information return. Magnetometry has the advantage over sonar that it can penetrate below the seabed surface, and consequently it can detect objects and formations that are buried. It cannot reveal the depth of burial however. It is also subject to interference from adjacent highly magnetic elements, such as passing shipping and ambient quays and jetties, both of which are relevant in the current instance, and both of which can make it difficult to isolate useful data.



The magnetometer survey which is presented in Hydrographic Surveys report of 2013 show the surveyed tracklines of both the magnetometer and the side-scan sonar surveys. At the level of variation shown, only the extremes are indicated. The presence of berthed vessels is clearly indicated within Alexandra Basin, and on the north and south quays as one progresses eastwards from the Port. Beyond the training walls, however, the suggestion of fluctuations is muted, and very few significant variations are indicated; those that occur are explained by the presence of the navigation buoys, with the suggestion also of the cross-Bay sewer pipeline.

Further insight is achieved by sifting the data for smaller-scale fluctuations, in the order of 10-20 nT. These are apparent when the data is presented in profile format, where the presence of sharply-defined spikes and dips highlights the presence of a localized anomaly. The individual magnetic anomalies are presented in Appendix 12.4 Magnetometer Survey. At this level of detail, the natural variation of the magnetic field is also apparent, and as the profiles reveal, the consistent pattern across the survey area shows a lot of variation, with the localized spikes occurring as additional fluctuations. The lines within Alexandra Basin West and alongside the quays are removed because of the intense fluctuations caused by proximity to the quays and to berthing vessels.

There are numerous small-scale variations on the remaining East-West lines (Figures 6.20-6.25 in Appendix 12.4). A noticeable cluster occurs across the channel adjacent to Berth 45 and the Oil Tank jetty, and no doubt reflects the activities of metal recycling conducted off the south quays in this area.

There is a moderate recurrence of magnetic anomalies along the approach channel out to the harbour entrance. A distinct Northeast-Southwest trend is apparent to the east of the training walls and extending across the channel between Buoys 5 and 6. This charts the route of the cross-Bay Sutton-Ringsend Sewer pipe, laid in 2003. It is a 1.42m-diameter steel pipe that is buried 4-8m below current seabed level. The track of the pipeline allows us to remove from further archaeological consideration any anomalies associated with its footprint. Further out, there are few magnetometer anomalies detected.

In the charted location of the four sites of wreckage recorded in the GSI data (W01551-W01554), there is no clear indication of a magnetometer anomaly. This observation is however tempered by the fact that a series of small readings identified at mg52_5, mg53_4 and mg54_3 are indicated slightly to the north forming a similar cluster pattern as W01552-W01554. Given the inaccuracy of historically-recorded wrecksite coordinates, this cluster of magnetometer anomalies to the north suggests an interest, although it is in a location for which there are no side-scan sonar anomalies recorded (compare Figures 6.20 and 6.26 in Appendix 12.4).

12.4.11 Sub-Bottom Profile Survey

The sub-bottom profiler is designed to determine the nature of buried stratigraphy, and is of use for detecting variations in the underlying geology of seabed. It can distinguish between hard deposits such as rock and soft deposits such as clays. It can also distinguish variations within soft deposits, where sands and silts may overlie clays. From an archaeological perspective, sub-bottom profiling can discern cuts into the deposits, where a sand or silt may fill a void in a clay deposit. The profiler can also reveal the presence of shipwreck, where the wrecksite is substantial enough to return a strong signal. Small-scale craft, such as typically-sized logboats or small skiffs, are unlikely to be identified because they lack the volume of timber and the hard-object cargo that otherwise provides the strength of signal needed to be visible in the datasets. In common with the magnetometer, the sub-bottom profiler only



acquires data from directly underneath the survey instrument. It is therefore most useful to have closely-spaced survey lines, to maximize the information return. This has informed the 20m spacing required for the present project. As noted above, the survey area inside the training walls determined the orientation of survey lines. Outside the harbour, such constraints did not exist, and the principal lines were orientated North-South, to run across the navigation channel in order to maximise the possibility for data recovery because sedimentary variation tends to be at a maximum perpendicular to the shore.

Overall results of the sub-bottom profile survey are presented in the Hydrographic Surveys report of Summer 2013 (Report no. PH 13003), which show cross-sectional interpretation of the data acquired on a representative selection of 71 of the survey lines. Lines 1-11 show the detail along the principal East-West survey lines within the harbour. Lines 12-60 show the detail along the principal North-South survey lines outside the harbour. Lines 61-68 consider Alexandra Basin West, and Lines 69-71 cover Terminal 5, Berths 52/53.

The survey penetrated to c. 20m below seabed level within the approach channel inside the harbour. The stratigraphy is principally a series of soft layers comprising of 0-1m of surface silts overlying sandy silts (varying 3-5m in depth), which overly silty sandy gravelly clays (5-10m deep). These in turn lie above boulder clay (3-10m deep), which is over rock. The silts, sands and clays are consistently recorded throughout the surveyed extent, but rock is only detectable in places, occurring on the north side of the channel by Alexandra Basin, and recurs on the south side of the channel up- and downriver of the Sludge jetty.

Within Alexandra Basin West, the deposits are principally silts overlying sandy silts, over gravelly clays, over boulder clay, with the exception of the south side of the basin, where a defined rock layer is recorded at c. -20m CD (interpreted survey lines 65, 66, HS 74A-11X/13). The rock disappears at the entrance to the basin. Although the rock is not clearly evident immediately beside North Wall Quay Extension on the basin side, the presence of rock levels in the main channel outside the basin, suggests the possibility that rock may well extend at depth under North Wall Quay Extension. One can note here that an overlay of Alexandra Basin with Rocque’s map of 1757 shows a correspondence between the entrance to the basin today and the line of an inlet. Furthermore, there is correspondence between the spit of sandbank that extended out to the inlet and where NWQE came to be built (Figure 12.5 in Appendix 12.1). It serves as a useful supporting indication of the solid ground upon which NWQE was founded.

The stratigraphic profile revealed by the sub-bottom profile survey within the inlet at Terminal 5 shows similar stratigraphy to that which occurs more generally, with rock occurring 15-20m below seabed level.

The sub-bottom profile survey penetrated to c. 15m below seabed level outside the harbour. A similar stratigraphy is revealed of silts overlying sandy silts, over gravelly clays, over boulder clay. In the area immediately outside the harbour entrance, the profile of the current channel is conveyed at the surface level with gently sloping sides. The underlying layers also reflect the presence of a channel but the slopes are not necessarily in synch with the surface slopes, nor are they always so gently angled (for example, interpreted survey lines 12-14, HS 74A-3X/13). There is a consistency to these images over several of the North-South survey lines, showing a more dramatic slope particularly at the boulder clay level. It suggests the presence of historic or indeed ancient alignments of the river channel that presumably predate any dredging experiences on the river, and is the clearest indication in the dataset for the possibility of palaeo-channels. The channel may have been positioned somewhat to the south of its current alignment, by the order of c. 25m. If this interpretation is correct, it is also the case that the variations in the boulder clay level indicate narrows as well as wider expanses, and this is in



keeping with a natural estuary or delta, where the river would have followed various channels through its lower reaches to the sea.

To the east, and between lines 16 and 25 (which is coterminous with Buoys 5 and 6), the distinctions of channel sides are much less defined, and the image is one of relatively flat stratigraphic layering. It is within this area that the Cross-Bay Sewer traverses the approach channel, but there is no clear indication of a trench-cut, and there is no suggestion of the 1.42m-diamter pipe, unlike in the magnetometer dataset which shows the line of the pipe very clearly. The clarity of the stratigraphy as recorded in the sub-bottom data is blurred and this indicates the disturbances that occurred as a result of the dredging, where the backfilled sediments are a general mix of ambient material.

Lines 25 and 26 characterise other lines to the east, in showing how modern dredging has removed the denser sandy silt that otherwise lies underneath the surface silt, and indeed how the sandy gravelly clay has been intruded into in the central channel area. The underlying deposits are left intact, and these can retain variations once again that are suggestive of former channels at depth.

Between lines 28 and 46, rock is evident beneath the boulder clay. This extends almost to the eastern extent of the survey area. At its highest, the rock lies at c. -18m CD, some 10m beneath current seabed level, but drops slowly eastwards to an average depth of -22m CD.

From an archaeological perspective, one can expect the potential for shipwreck material in the upper zone of sandy silt and gravel, which can reach 7-10m in thickness outside the harbour. It is in this layer, for instance, that the known shipwrecks in the wider bay area have been seen, whether as the timber wreck W01465 recorded to the east of Terminal 5, or as the ‘wreck observed during the multi-beam survey south of Poolbeg Light house, W018522.

In places, such as Lines 25-26, modern dredging has all but removed the layer from the Approach Channel, but in other places it remains in place. The potential of this layer to retain archaeological material within the works area is indicated on Line 29, where two discontinuous internal reflectors occur and have been highlight as being archaeological targets, one on either side of the channel’s side slopes (HS 74A-5X/13).

A number of discontinuous internal reflectors exist in the larger dataset. A list of 30 anomalies is presented in Appendix 12.4 Sub-Bottom Profile Survey. It should be emphasised that the reflectors are indicative of archaeological potential only; in no case does any of the reflectors present unqualified evidence for a wrecksite or other significant feature. No reflectors were observed at the charted locations of wrecksites W01551-W01554. This is a further indication that the charted locations may be erroneous.

In six instances, the reflector appears to be at or immediately beneath the surface (sb2, sb3, sb4, sb14, sb17, sb18). Dive inspection of these locations may provide further insight to what they are.

In three instances, the reflector occurs within the sandy silts that are considered ideal entrapment areas for wreckage (sb12, sb15, sb16). Anomalies sb15 and sb16 are located outside the dredge area, andno further action is required in these instances. However, sb12 which occurs within the area to be dredged, and is located close to the eastern extent of the dredge area. The location should be dive-inspected prior to dredging.



In the majority of cases the sub-bottom reflector lies buried in the covering sands, making further assessment prior to dredging impractical. These reflectors include markers that highlight the possibility of palaeo-channels (sb19, sb22-sb28). The presence of deep reflectors emphasises the need for archaeological monitoring during construction, as it is at this stage that the anomaly and any associated material may be exposed and recovered to the surface.

12.4.12 Correspondences between Side-scan sonar, Magnetometry and Sub-Bottom Profile data

There is an association between some of the anomalies in the different datasets. This association is between side-scan sonar and magnetometer anomalies. There is no instance of a direct overlap with sub-bottom profile anomalies.

The association between side-scan sonar anomalies and magnetometer anomalies indicates that the former have a ferrous metal (iron/steel) content, and that the anomalies are man-made in origin. The combination, for instance, highlights the anomalies associated with the present-day navigation buoys.

The association should not detract from the archaeological potential of side-scan sonar targets that do not have a corresponding magnetic signature, it merely indicates that those side-scan sonar targets are unlikely to have a significant metal content and may be represented by organic remains only, such as rope or timber, if they are not naturally-formed features.

Equally, in those instances where the magnetometer anomaly is not associated with a side-scan sonar feature, the conclusion is that, either the surface indicator is too small to register in the sonar trace, or the anomaly is buried. It is not possible to estimate the depth of burial from the evidence recovered. As detail relating to the Cross-Bay sewer pipe reveals, that feature is buried 4-8m below the seabed surface. Such potential features in other contexts that indicate they are buried would not generally be subject to further pre-disturbance assessment. The exception would be those anomalies (mg52_5, mg53_4 and mg54_3) that lie close to and share a similar clustering that distinguishes the distribution of the charted wreck features W01552, W01553 and W01554. To date, based on the marine surveys completed, it appears that the wrecks may not be at their charted location.Tt is necessary to be open to the suggestion that the coordinates are wrong, and that side-scan sonar and magnetometry surveys commissioned by Dublin Port as part of the EIS will contribute useful information in clarifying the actual position of these features.

More generally, the presence of the magnetometer anomalies informs the construction stage in much the same way as buried sub-bottom profile reflectors, and signals the need for monitoring of the dredging process to seek to recover such buried objects at that time.

Despite the absence of direct overlap with sub-bottom profile targets across the datasets, there are three cases where sub-bottom profile anomalies lie close to side-scan sonar anomalies and anomaly clusters. Sub-bottom sb6 lies 18m from side-scan target 143_1; sb10 lies 30m from the cluster associated with 53_1; and sb12 lies 45m from 36_2, 46_4. Although the latter is some distance away, the relative attention to this anomaly is raised on the basis that dive inspection has observed metal fragments at the sonar anomalies.



12.4.13 Concluding observations

The marine geophysical surveys completed for the ABR Project have been very comprehensive and thorough. The work has produced a significant sequence of datasets that inform the present study and will be useful to future work and research of Dublin Bay’s sedimentary history.

No shipwrecks or related significant archaeological material have been definitively identified in the datasets. A large number of possible indicators of cultural remains have been recorded and positioned.

The sand-banks through which the Approach Channel is aligned retain the highest potential for the discovery of new archaeological sites, as attested by the existing information. The silty sand layer that forms the uppermost significant deposit is an ideal entrapment level for wreckage and related remains.

Within the Approach Channel, large sections of the upper silty sand layer have been removed by the effects of induced tidal scour and by capital dredging campaigns that extend back several centuries. The marine geophysical surveys have identified anomalies on the seabed and these are subject to an ongoing programme of dive inspection. To date, no material of obvious archaeological significance has been identified.

12.5 UNDERWATER INSPECTION/DIVER TRUTHING

Condition 3 of the DAHG observation on the proposed marine geophysical survey states the ‘anomalies identified in the surveys should be dived by an archaeologist licensed under the National Monuments Acts 1930-2004’.24 The DAHG has acknowledged that dive inspections should proceed as weather dictates. The DAHG further acknowledges that this process can continue after submission of the EIS but should be completed prior to Oral Hearing, so that An Bord Pleanála can be informed fully of the archaeological potential before making its decisions.25 Archaeological inspection surveys occurred on 26-29/11/2013 and 18/12/2013, achieving 36 separate dives and inspecting 42 individual side-scan sonar targets. The results are absorbed into the side-scan sonar data in Appendix 12.4, and are presented in Appendix 12.5.

12.5.1 Observations

The dive inspections have focussed on the side-scan sonar anomalies or targets, as these anomalies are by default exposed on the seabed and therefore visible to the diver. Magnetometer targets, where they are represented in isolation and without a corresponding side-scan sonar signature, may be buried in the seabed deposit. In such circumstances, the target would be inaccessible and invisible to the diver. Sub-bottom profile targets can also lie buried and as such are inaccessible for dive inspection, although there are certain instances where appears that the reflectors lie at or just below the seabed surface. Consideration can be given to inspecting those locations as well, where they lie within the proposed impact areas.

24 G Pre00148/2013, condition 3. 25 This point was made at a meeting of the Project Team with DAHG on 06/11/2013.



The dive work has sought to assess individual targets across the survey area, to provide insight to the varied type of anomaly encountered along the length of the Approach Channel, on its side slopes, and at locations that remain outside the proposed direct impact zones for dredging.

The dive work has helped to clarify the archaeological potential of the anomalies inspected. Prior to the inspections, the side-scan sonar data indicated one potential high-value target within the survey area. Anomaly 1_9 presented an image of a substantial rectangular target lying on the seabed, measuring c. 5m long by c. 2m wide. The anomaly was identified on several corresponding data traces. However, no target was identified when inspected by diving. The seabed is a hard gravel bed in this location. There was no indication of objects such as metal or timber, and it is determined that the side-scan sonar anomaly represents a natural formation in the gravel bed.

Overall, the dive inspections have confirmed the low archaeological potential of the targets inspected, clarifying that the targets are modern objects such as tyres, mooring blocks or pieces or navigation buoys, or that they are natural features, such as gravel ridges or concentrations of cobbles. There are also several instances where the dive inspection was not able to identify any feature on the seabed.

There are two instances where material was identified that warrants consideration. At side-scan sonar anomaly 158_2, located on the northern slope of the approach channel, a 1m-diameter iron/steel flanged pipe was observed protruding from the slope, at a depth of c. 3m from the top of the slope. The pipe is twisted and bent from previous damage, having been grabbed and buckled. It remains possible that further remains are buried in the sands behind the side slope. The metal pipe appears to be comparatively modern. The appropriate mitigation is archaeological monitoring during dredging.

The second instance lies close to the eastern extremity of the survey area, at side-scan sonar anomalies 36_2, 46_4. The side-scan sonar data indicated a localised hard object. Dive inspection observed a series of exposed sections of iron on the seabed, measuring 1.4m long, 5cm wide, and 8cm thick. The iron is covered in marine growth but the metal appears to be of modern origin. The surrounding seabed is composed of compact clay. It is possible that the metal is part of a structure that is buried in the seabed at this location. It is notable that the anomaly occurs to the east of the cluster of plotted wrecksites W01552-1554, which have left no clear marine geophysical signature. Given the locational inaccuracy of historic wrecksite coordinates, it is possible in the present instance that the dive inspection has identified the actual location of one of these sites. Further inspection and assessment is planned.

Additional dive work will take place in the Spring of 2014 as weather permits. The results of this work will form an Addendum to the EIS.



12.6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 26

Impacts and mitigations are summarised in Table 12.6, and described below.

Table 12.6 Summary of assessed archaeological and architectural heritage impacts and mitigations associated with the ABR Project

Reference Site type Impacts from ABR Mitigation

DCIHR 18-08-081, NCEHD 3024

Graving Dock No. 1 To be re-opened as part of Heritage Gain

• Re-exposure to be achieved as an archaeological operation

DCIHR 18-12-005, DCIHR 18-12-084, DCIHR 18-12-091, NCEHD 3253


Development works will partially remove and partially bury the quay in the redevelopment of NWQE

• Archaeological recording in advance of development

• Archaeological investigation of former deck feature

• Preservation by record • Archaeological

monitoring during development

DCIHR 18-12-083 Goods Shed, NWQE, site of

Potentially demolished by development works




DCIHR 18-12-085 Goods Shed, NWQE, site of





DCIHR -12-086 Good Shed, NWQE, site of





DCIHR 18-12-087 Revenue Watch House, NWQE, site of



• Preservation by record • Archaeological monitoring

during development DCIHR 18-12-088 North Wall Light house,

NWQE, site of n/a as this feature was already relocated in 1937

• Archaeological monitoring during development

26 This section does not purport to relate precise engineering details but is rather an attempt to understand the nature of the impact on the potential archaeological environment, based on the data supplied by RPS.



Reference Site type Impacts from ABR Mitigation

DCIHR 18-12-090 Alexandra Basin Dredging of basin silts • Archaeological monitoring during dredging

DCIHR 18-12-092, 93

North Wall Light house, NWQE

To be relocated as part of the development works

• Detailed record to be made of light house prior to removal

• Management plan to be devised to protect light house during development works

• Re-deployment to be achieved as an archaeological operation

NCEHD 3051 Poolbeg Lighthouse, Great South Wall, Poolbeg

Foundations of Great South Wall terminus will be reinforced with further rock armouring due to deeper dredge design level

• Archaeological monitoring

NMI 1970:190-192 Objects dredged from seabed at NWQE

Area will be re-dredged • Archaeological monitoring

GSI 162 Recorded wreck feature, possibly an abandoned vessel or part thereof close to former shipyard

Rubble fill overburden will be removed, potentially re-exposing the feature

• Archaeological monitoring • Underwater inspection and

preservation by record if necessary

W01551 INSS G160 possible wreck, measuring 3m long, 3m wide, 3m high

Area will be dredged • Underwater inspection and recording will take place as part of EIS

• Preservation by record if necessary

• Archaeological monitoring W01552 INSS G161a possible

wreck, measuring 3m long, 3m wide, 3m high



• Archaeological monitoring W01553 INSS G161b possible




• Archaeological monitoring W01554 INSS G161c possible




• Archaeological monitoring Various Marine Geophysical

Survey anomalies and seabed, Alexandra Basin and the Approach Channel

Locations will be dredged

• Underwater inspection and recording will take place as part of EIS


• Archaeological monitoring Note: Only sites where direct impacts are indicated are included in the table. Marine Geophysical

anomalies are grouped as one entry. For specific sites on land and at sea, and for all other locations mentioned in the assessment, see Appendices 12.1-12.4.



12.6.1 Impacts during Construction Phase

Berths 52/53

The proposed impacts will be to infill the open-water area, using material derived from the dredgings that will form part of the larger project.

The structure of Berths 52/53 is not of interest from a cultural heritage perspective.

No direct excavation disturbance of the seabed is envisaged within the inlet of Terminal 5.

The ABR Project works associated with filling-in Berths 52/53 will have no impacts relating to archaeology or architectural heritage.


The following principal impacts are proposed within Alexandra Basin West, excluding North Quay Extension, which is considered separately below:

Fill in Graving Dock No. 2

Demolish the Lead-in Jetty

Remove the recent infill beside the Lead-in jetty

Relocate the ore loading facility

Demolish the Bulk Jetty

Re-open Graving Dock No. 1 as an initiative related to heritage gain.

Removal of the recent infill beside the Lead-in jetty will serve to reinstate an element of the former footprint of Alexandra Basin. One of the historic shipwreck sites associated with the Port and the Approach Channel is located under this area of recent infill (GSI 162). Given that this location is close to the old shipbuilding and repair yards, it is possible that remains of a vessel were abandoned here. The process of removing the modern overburden will be monitored archaeologically. Once it is established that wreckage remains are identified, an underwater inspection will take place to assess the nature and extent of the remains. That work will report to the Port and to the regulatory authorities with a mitigation proposal to preserve by record the integrity of the site, and remove the remains for further recording and/or disposal as may be deemed necessary.

The re-opening of Graving Dock No. 1 will be a heritage-gain that will re-expose an important engineering structure of mid-19th century date (DCIHR 18-08-081, NCEHD 3024). Such work will need to be completed under archaeological and architectural heritage guidance to ensure that due care is taken to preserve the integrity and authenticity of the original structure.




The works required on the North Wall Quay Extension are described in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIS. North Wall Quay Extension is an important cultural heritage asset that continues to serve an important role as a working asset of the Port’s key infrastructure. As with all assets of the Port it requires maintenance and development to continue to serve the broad range of social and economic activities that are central to the Port’s existence.

The works required on North Wall Quay Extension as part of the ABR Project will relocate Ramp No. 4, which is currently located next to the quay at its westernmost basin side; and demolish Ramp No. 6, which is located on the riverside of the quay. It will also demolish portion of the quay, by removing the basin-side of the active quay area and the easternmost c. 150m of the quay. The latter constitutes most of Mallagh’s completion works of 1931. The original western extent of the quay on the basin side that is now concealed beneath Terminal 3 will not be affected.

Associated dredging works will deepen the seabed along the riverside and within the basin so that the new bed level will lie below the base of the quay. The current bed level is -7.3m CD on the basin side and -8.5m on the channel side. The existing foundations on the basin side within the works area will be removed. The surviving section of the foundation on the channel side extends to c. -7.05m CD. The proposed new dredge depth within the basin and along the channel will be -10m CD, with the potential future dredge depth within the channel to -15m CD.

To ensure that the surviving element of the quay remains secure, a combi-wall will be inserted along the basin side, retaining the existing fill of the quay, and sheet-piling along the length of the channel side will extend to below the possible future dredge depth of -15m CD, to secure the footings of the quay.

The quay itself will be retained within a composite casing structure that includes vertically-placed steel ties which extend from a reinforced concrete deck to the steel shutting below, and horizontally-placed steel ties that run through the quay wall at specified intervals. It is anticipated that the framework will leave sections of the quay’s river façade fully exposed, and that the coping stones will be reused as coping stones on the new concrete deck, thereby retaining as much as possible of the 19th-century quay within the visible elements of the new work.

The North Quay lighthouse will be relocated to the terminus of the rebuilt quay.

These works represent a significant, permanent, direct negative impact on the North Wall Quay Extension as built by Bindon Blood Stoney and completed by Joseph Mallagh. A process of archaeological mitigation will be carried out to comprehensively preserve by record the quay structure, and will include those elements that will be removed during construction, and those elements that will be concealed during construction.

Given the importance of the industrial heritage of the North Wall Quay Extension a Level 2 industrial archaeological heritage study has been undertaken and presented in Section 12.8 of this Chapter of the EIS.



Approach Channel

In addition to the works to be conducted on the terrestrial elements of the ABR Project, there will be remediation of contamination on the bed of the Alexandra Basin West, capital dredging to deepen the basin and to achieve specified depths of up to -10m CD at the new berths, construction of a new river berth, and deepening of the fairway and approach channel to Dublin Port to increase the ruling depth from -7m CD to -10m CD. A breakwater will be constructed on the side of channel by Poolbeg marina, to protect the marina against prop-wash from turning vessels

These works represent direct permanent impacts on the seabed and will include capital dredging and the disposal of dredged spoil.

The dredging works will take place in a phased progression over a six year period.

The deepening of the approach channel will present indirect impacts on the existing side slopes and associated areas. Hydrodynamic modelling for the project (Chapter 9) anticipates that the impacts will be restricted to the channel area and its immediate environs and that additional rock-armoured protection may be required at the seaward end of the Great South Wall.

The locations of wreck sites W01551-W01554 will be impacted directly by dredging. The direct impact resulting from this work will expose the wreck features if they exist. Dive inspections of these locations will take place to clarify whether there is any indication of the sites. If the dive inspections support the indications from the marine geophysical survey data that the location coordinates are incorrect, further mitigation will occur as archaeological monitoring of the dredging works. However, if the current dive work establishes that wreckage remains are identifiable, underwater inspection will assess the nature and extent of the remains. Should it not be possible to avoid direct impacts during dredging, the mitigation will be to preserve by record the integrity of the site/s, and remove the remains for further recording and/or disposal as may be deemed necessary,

The locations of the various marine geophysical survey anomalies detected on the seabed surface within the dredge area will be impacted directly by the works, and will be exposed and removed. The dive inspections are currently assessing the archaeological significance of these anomalies. Anomalies that lie buried within the upper metres will be subject to being exposed during dredging and removed. Archaeological monitoring will take place during dredging work.

Contaminated dredged spoil from Alexander Basin West will be treated and then use as fill material in Berths 52/53e treated dredge material will also be used to fill Graving Dock No. 2. Dredged material from the navigation channel will be disposed of at a licensed offshore disposal site located to the west of the Burford Bank (subject to the granting of a Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA).

12.6.2 Impacts during Operation and Aftercare

Berths 52/53

There will be no impacts associated with the operation and aftercare at Berths 52/53 that require cultural heritage input.




The re-opening of Graving Dock # 1 and the refurbishing of the Pump House will necessitate a long-term maintenance programme that considers issues associated with access and structural maintenance and these issues will take account of cultural heritage issues as well as on-site management issues.


The elements of the North Wall Quay Extension that will be concealed beneath the new deck area will remain secure into the future.

The elements of the North Wall Quay Extension that will remain exposed to view, which will include the Channel-side façade and the coping stones that will be reused on the new deck may require maintenance and repair, as part of ongoing building maintenance schedules.

Any ashlar blocks that cannot be re-used in the new design will be stored securely within the Port property for future re-use in appropriate manners.

It is proposed to recover elements of the foundation blocks used to construct the base of the quay between 1871 and 1885. Details of the conservation management plan to ensure that the integrity of the section/s recovered is maintained in a suitable context and environment is presented in the Conservation Strategy (under separate cover).

Approach Channel

Chapter 9 of the EIS – Coastal Processes, describes an extensive programme of model simulations which has been undertaken to evaluate how the ABR Project’s capital dredging element would impact the coastal processes and the stability of the approach channel as well as to investigate the disposal of dredged spoil at the existing licensed offshore spoil site within Dublin Bay.

The results from the morphological simulations of the existing and proposed approach channel show that the proposed channel will perform in a similar manner to the existing channel. As with the existing channel there will be a tendency for the northern bank of the approach channel, seaward of the North Bull Wall, to migrate south under storm conditions. Similarly it is expected that there will be siltation along the banks of the approach channel landward of the Bull Walls with a tendency for these banks to migrate in towards the channel. It is expected that the new channel will require maintenance dredging of a similar magnitude to that required with the existing channel. There will however be a higher rate of siltation at the western end of the Liffey channel in the harbour, seaward of the East Link Bridge, due to the increased dredged depth in this area.

The results also show that there will be no significant impact on the sediment transport regime within Dublin Bay and estuary outside the approach channel area as a result of the capital dredging scheme.



12.7 MITIGATING MEASURES

Mitigation measures are summarised in Table 12.6, and described below.

12.7.1 Pre-construction Measures

Berths 52/53

It is not expected that there will be any archaeological requirement associated with this aspect of the project works.


It is expected pre-construction mitigations within Alexandra Basin West will be required at North Wall Quay Extension.


Subject to the granting of permission for the ABR Project, archaeological and architectural/industrial heritage pre-construction mitigation will include a metrically-accurate stone-by-stone survey of North Wall Quay Extension above and below the waterline, to create a permanent record of the quay in its present state. The work will be able to prepare detailed scaled elevation drawings, long- and cross-sections, and plan views of the quay. Consideration will be given to achieving this work using digital scan technology.

Coping stones and façade stones to be reused in the new quay will be numbered and recorded in advance of demolition works, to ensure accurate replacement.

North Wall Lighthouse should be recorded in detail and a management plan devised to ensure its safe custody during construction and its safe repositioning post-construction.

Further detail is presented in the Level 2 industrial archaeological heritage study in Section 12.8 of this Chapter of the EIS.

Approach Channel

Archaeological underwater inspection is ongoing to assess the nature and extent of anomalies and seabed features detected in the marine geophysical survey. In the event that such work identifies features of archaeological significance, these features will be examined to clarify their nature and extent, and may be subject to further archaeological mitigation in advance of dredging works.



12.7.2 Construction Phase Measures

Berths 52/53

It is not expected that there will be any archaeological requirement associated with this aspect of the project works.


All activity associated with removing infill within the basin will be archaeologically monitored, as will all demolition works and dredging works, to safeguard the possibility of uncovering material of archaeological interest during construction. Particular archaeological requirements pertain to works at North Wall Quay Extension.

Once it is established that wreckage remains are identified below the overburden beside the Lead-in jetty, an underwater inspection will take place to assess the nature and extent of the remains. That work will report to the Port and to the regulatory authorities with a mitigation proposal to preserve by record the integrity of the site, and remove the remains for further recording and/or disposal as may be deemed necessary.


Archaeological investigations will be conducted on the deck area of North Wall Quay Extension, to assess the presence and extent of features that relate to the early use of the quay, which may be buried beneath the current working surface. Archaeological investigations are licensed by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. In the event that the investigations observe remains of the features, they will be preserved by record.

Demolition works will be archaeologically monitored under licence from the DAHG, and the opportunities will be taken to record more fully the nature of the quay’s construction.

An exemplar of Bindon Blood Stoney’s foundation blocks will be retained for public view as part of the Port’s cultural heritage assets. Further detail is presented in the Level 2 industrial archaeological heritage study in Section 12.8 of this Chapter of the EIS and within the Conservation Strategy (under separate cover).

Approach Channel Archaeological monitoring of all dredging activities conducted within the Approach Channel will be carried out, with the provision to resolve fully any material of archaeological significance observed at that point.

12.7.3 Archaeological Management Measures

RETAINING AN ARCHAEOLOGIST/S. An archaeologist experienced in maritime archaeology will be retained for the duration of the relevant works.

RETAINING A HERITAGE ARCHITECT or ENGINEER. A heritage architect or Engineer experienced in industrial and maritime architectural heritage will be retained for the duration of



the relevant works, to advise specifically in relation to works associated with North Wall Quay Extension.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL LICENCES will be required to conduct the on-site archaeological works. Licence applications require the inclusion of detailed method statements, which outline the rationale for the works, and the means by which the works will be resolved. Licence applications take a MINIMUM OF THREE WEEKS to process through the Department, and advance planning is required to ensure that the necessary permits are in place before site works commence. One can anticipate that the following licence types will be required: Excavation, to cover monitoring and investigations works; Detection, to cover the use of metal-detectors; and Dive Survey, to cover the possibility of having to conduct underwater inspections.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING will be carried out by suitably qualified and experienced maritime archaeological personnel licensed by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Archaeological monitoring is conducted during all terrestrial, inter-tidal/foreshore and seabed disturbances associated with the development. Licence applications.

The monitoring will be undertaken in a safe working environment that will facilitate archaeological observation and the retrieval of objects that may be observed and that require consideration during the course of the works.

The monitoring will include a finds retrieval strategy that is in compliance with the requirements of the National Museum of Ireland.

THE TIME SCALE for the construction phase will be made available to the archaeologist, with information on where and when ground disturbances will take place.

DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL. In the event of archaeologically significant features or material being uncovered during the construction phase, machine work will cease in the immediate area to allow the archaeologist/s to inspect any such material.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL. Once the presence of archaeologically significant material is established, full archaeological recording of such material will be recommended. If it is not possible for the construction works to avoid the material, full excavation will be recommended. The extent and duration of excavation will be a matter for discussion between the client and the licensing authorities.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEAM. It is recommended that the core of a suitable archaeological team be on standby to deal with any such rescue excavation. This would be complimented in the event of a full excavation.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIVE TEAM. It is recommended that an archaeological dive team is retained on standby for the duration of any in-water disturbance works on the basis of a twenty-four or forty-eight hour call-out response schedule, to deal with any archaeologically significant/potential material that is identified in the course of the seabed disturbance activities.

A SITE OFFICE and facilities will be provided by the Dublin Port Company on site for use by archaeologists.



SECURE WET STORAGE facilities will be provided on site by the Dublin Port Company to facilitate the temporary storage of artefacts that may be recorded during the course of the site work.

BOUYING/FENCING of any such areas of discovery will be necessary if discovered and during excavation.

MACHINERY TRAFFIC during construction will be restricted to avoid any identified archaeological site/s and their environs.

SPOIL will not be dumped on any of the selected sites or their environs.

POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPORT AND ARCHIVE. It is a condition of archaeological licensing that a detailed project report is lodged with the DAHG within 12 months of completion of site works. The report should be to publication standard and should include a full account, suitably illustrated, of all archaeological features, finds and stratigraphy, along with a discussion and specialist reports. Artefacts recovered during the works need to meet the requirements of the National Museum of Ireland.

PLEASE NOTE: the above recommendations are subject to the approval of the National Monuments Section at the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.



12.8 LEVEL 2 INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE STUDY

The following survey is a level-two industrial archaeological inventory of the historic docklands landscape in the area of Alexandra Basin West in Dublin Port, conducted by the Historic Building Survey Unit, Department of Archaeology, University College Cork. Its primary aim is to enhance the present understanding of the industrial archaeological importance of this feature, with the results of this survey intended to inform the EIS and overall conservation strategy for it as an historic place, as defined by the Burra Charter.

12.8.1 Baseline Environment

The legislative and institutional context

The principal Irish legislation, international charters, local development plans and guidelines relating to the protection, recording and enhancement of archaeology and the historic built environment in general may be summarised as follows:

Irish legislation

National Monuments Act 1930-2004 (amended)

Heritage Act, 1995

National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997 (amended)

Planning and Development Acts 2000-2013

Architectural Heritage and Historic Properties Act, 1999

International Charters and Conventions

Valetta Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1992

Joint ICOMOS-TICCIH Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes (The Dublin Principles), 2011

The Burra Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 1999

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), advisory body to UNESCO concerning protection of sites and recommendation, 1992

Local Authority Development Plans & Other Plans

Dublin City Heritage Plan 2002-2006 (2002)

Dublin City Council Development Plan 2011 – 2017

Dublin Port Company Masterplan, 2012 – 2040

Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan, 2008



Heritage Plans & Guidelines

The National Heritage Plan (2002)

Dublin City Heritage Plan 2002-2006 (2002)

Office of Public Works Statement of Strategy, 2005-2008

Guidelines on the information to the contained in Environmental Impact Statements, 2002

Advice notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), 2003

Architectural Heritage Protection: Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2011

The Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1999.

12.8.2 Assessment methodology

The overview and archaeological evaluation of the site that follows was preceded by a desk-based assessment. Its primary aims are fivefold:

1. To record all surviving features of archaeological, techno-historical and architectural significance;

2. To appraise and evaluate its industrial archaeological/architectural/techno-historical significance, and to identify immediate conservation priorities (as deemed appropriate).

3. To provide an archaeological inventory of the features identified within the assessment area

4. To assess the impact of the proposed scheme

5. To propose mitigation measures

The principal sources consulted were as follows: Record of Monuments and Places (RMP)

Sites and Monuments Record

National Museum of Ireland (NMI) Topographical files

The Irish Railway Record Society Archive, Heuston Station

The Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record

The Dublin Docklands Architectural Survey

Historic map collections

Historic photographic collections



Primary written sources, e.g. the Griffith Valuation Housebooks for the survey area in the National Archives, Dublin

Secondary sources (e.g. archaeological and architectural journals).

www. excavations.ie

12.8.3 Previous archaeological survey work in the study area

Recorded Archaeological Monuments and Places: Despite the undisputed presence of site of national significance there are no recorded monuments in the RMP or in the Dublin City Record of Protected Structures within the study area. There are no recorded finds from the study in the NMI topographical files, nor have any test excavations been conducted within the area under assessment here. In 2013, however, an extensive Cultural Heritage Environmental Report, for the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, North Wall Quay Extension, was undertaken by Magnus Archaeology for the Dublin Port Authority. This includes a detailed study of the shipwrecks associated with the study area and its environs. 12.8.4 The receiving environment

The physical development of the north Dublin city docklands in general mirrors that of other important European ports in the 18th and 19th centuries. Almost invariably, port facilities were expanded upstream from a medieval core, to accommodate both a growing demand for additional quay space and the need for specialised berths, such as oil terminals, roll on roll off facilities and later, in 1960s, standard size 'inter modal' container terminals. Indeed, as in Dublin's Alexandra Basin, the need for additional berths led to construction of branch docks at right angles to main basin. Similar trends were in evidence in English ports, such as at Huskisson Dock and Langton to Alexandra group of docks at Liverpool in 1860s and 1870s, and also at Tilbury dock on lower Thames in 1884. In Dublin, these were increasingly built downstream as size of ships increases, and its scale of operations and expansion can be paralleled with Liverpool and London docks

The rapid expansion of Ireland’s maritime trade in the 18th century, and the commercial and economic development associated with it, brought increased political pressure for improvements to existing port facilities. No Irish port, indeed, was so favourably circumstanced that it could hope expand without major improvements to its approaches. Dublin harbour was naturally disadvantaged by a sand bar at its mouth, formed by the silt discharged from the mouths of the rivers Dodder, Liffey and Tolka into Dublin Bay, whilst its quaysides were quite shallow. Between 1786 and 1867, a Corporation for the Improvement of Dublin (replaced by Dublin Port and Docks Board in 1867) was the principal institutional framework responsible for the development of the port of Dublin. During the nineteenth century, the development of steam packet ferries in the Irish Sea area also led to the creation of new port facilities, as did direct government intervention (through the Board of Public Works) in western fishing harbours Shallow shipping channels and the silting up of harbours presented the single biggest problem to port development in the 18th and early 19th centuries, and invariably required both an institutional response and a considerable cash outlay. Before the advent of the steam dredger, little could be profitably achieved by spoon dredging. In 1815, the Dublin Ballast Board began work with a steam dredger, purchased on the advice of their engineer, George Halpin, who had familiarised himself with recent developments in other countries. The dredger, Patrick, was built by Anthony Hill’s Dublin yard and its engine which, after contemporary English practice, powered an endless chain of buckets, was supplied by Fenton, Murray and Wood of Leeds.i However, although Patrick had to be towed into position, it could manoeuvre in a limited fashion by pulling against its front anchors. The material or dredge stuff excavated by it



was carried out to sea in four newly commissioned lighters of 35 tons each. In 1830, Patrick was replaced by a new dredger, a self-propelled vessel built by a Scottish firm at Leith, which was capable of excavating some 1,500 tons of dredge stuff each week.ii Hopper barges were used in conjunction with the bucket dredger, Greenore, in 1867, during the removal of the sand bar at Carlingford, county Louth, while the new technology was quickly adopted in Dublin port where, between 1869 and 1871, over £500,000 was expended on new dredging plant, which included a new dredger and three steam hopper barges. These latter were designed by the Dublin Port Engineer, Bindon Blood Stoney, each of which had a capacity of 850-1,000 tons of dredge stuff.iii For the greater part of the 19th century, steam-powered bucket dredgers operated in Irish ports but, in 1895, the Port of Dublin contracted a Dutch firm to provide it with suction dredging plant. This innovation had first been employed by Libby in the American port of Charleston in 1855, and was adopted and further developed in Europe, in Holland and France during the 1870s. Suction dredgers were used at Liverpool in 1893 and were first operated in Ireland, at Dublin, in 1896, where they demonstrated their superiority in the removal of sand and mud.iv

The accumulation of river-borne debris and sea sand within shipping channels, it was clear, required constant attention. Yet dredging alone could not, in the long term, be relied upon to remove or even check natural obstructions created by riverine deposition at estuaries. Such problems were particularly severe within the environs of Dublin Bay and its notorious sand bar, whose improvement John Rennie remarked was ‘perhaps one of the most difficult subjects which has ever come under the consideration of the civil engineer’.v The material deposited by the Liffey, Tolka and Dodder rivers formed two large sand banks, known as the North and South Bulls, which formed constantly shifting and consequently dangerous channels for shipping. Works to remedy this problem were begun at a relatively early period, in 1711, commencing with the construction of a timber jetty that was to form the northern side of a straight channel leading from Dublin Bay to the city quaysides. The northern arm of the new channel extended for a distance of 7,938 ft (2.419 km) from Ringsend to the Pigeon House Fort, and from the latter for a distance of 9,816 ft (2.991 km) to the eastern spit of the South Bull. The jetty was constructed with timber caissons, which were assembled at Ringsend and floated to the site where, after being filled with rubble, they were sunk into position. In 1748, the first section between Ringsend and the Pigeon House Fort was rebuilt as a double line of masonry retaining walls with a sand-filled core. Prior to the construction of the channel, navigation to the Dublin quaysides could often be difficult, obliging larger ships to transfer their cargoes to lighters near Dalkey.vi

In the long term, however, the sand bar in Dublin Bay would, if not properly dealt with, continue to create problems for shipping. Captain William Bligh, of HMS Bounty fame, was commissioned in 1800 to make a detailed survey of Dublin Bay with a view to its improvement, and in his recommendations became one of the first to suggest that a breakwater be constructed on the north side. This, he argued, would create a scouring action in which sand would be washed away from the harbour mouth, by augmenting the flow of the river. This same concept was later proposed by Chapman, Cornielle and John Rennie, but came nowhere near realisation until Francis Giles and George Halpin suggested, in 1819, that a masonry breakwater be constructed from the north shore at Clontarf to a point opposite Poolbeg lighthouse. This latter, the North Bull Wall, some 5,500 ft (1.676 km) long, was completed between 1820 and 1825. It was built with limestone and granite rubblestone masonry, and effectively formed an artificial mouth for the River Liffey. The scouring effect created by the wall dramatically reduced the level of the sand bar, while at the same preventing sand from the North Bull from being deposited in the river channel. Before the construction of the North Bull breakwater, the depth at low water during the spring tides was only 6 ft (1.82 m); by 1873, it was over 16 ft (4.87 m).vii The first parapet walls along the Liffey quays were built in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and were generally of bonded rubble with cut stone granite façades. The costs of preparing quay walls below water could be



prohibitive, in 1863, the engineer of Dublin port, Bindon Blood Stoney, had begun to evaluate the relative costs of both masonry and concrete for this purpose. Stoney undertook a series of tests which established that concrete was actually some 50% cheaper, and he proposed to manufacture monolithic blocks of concrete, up to 350 tons in weight, which would be laid on the river bed as the foundations of quay walls. He was not, however, the first to carry out such a scheme in Ireland.viii In 1870 James Barton (who designed the Boyne viaduct), had already begun to lay 100 ton concrete blocks for the below water section of an 800 yard (731.52 m) quay wall at Greenore Harbour, at the entrance to Carlingford Lough, constructed to serve the new Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway.ix

Yet for all that, Stoney’s scheme to provide new quay walls on the north side of the estuary of the River Liffey was novel in its execution. The conventional method of laying the foundations of quay walls involved the construction of expensive coffer dams, which were continually pumped dry to facilitate building work. However, in Stoney’s scheme, the foundations for the concrete monoliths were first excavated by a dredger, while the final levelling off work was carried out on the river bed by men working within a massive diving bell, supplied with compressed air. This latter, which was some 20 ft (6.09 m) square and had a vertical access shaft protected by an airlock, was manufactured by Grendon of Drogheda in 1869. The enormous concrete blocks, which were fabricated nearby, were lifted by a floating crane built by Harland and Wolff in 1866 (the lifting machinery was supplied by Courtney and Stephens of Dublin), and the first of these was lowered into position in 1871. Stoney’s method proved to be both expeditious and cheap, and by 1882, over 2,000 ft (609.6 m) of new quay wall, with a depth of 22 ft (6.70 m), had been laid by this means. The exterior face of the wall below water was then faced with Dublin calplimestone, that above water was finished in the usual way with granite ashlar coped with granite blocks.x

Cranes and hoists, both manually operated and steam-powered, were a relatively common feature of Ireland’s ports during the later 19th century. The availability of electricity at Poolbeg during the late 19th century led to the erection of electric cranes, which included a 100 ton example, completed in 1903 and dismantled in 1987. A small generating station was constructed on the North Wall extension in 1903, where four, four-ton electric cranes were erected, along with electric capstans for hauling wagons.xiHowever, while electricity had become a vital part of the late nineteenth-century infrastructure of the port of Belfast where, in 1892, a generating station was opened at the Abercorn basin, there were no electric cranes employed there until 1918. Yet in a wider context, the developments in the ports of Dublin and Belfast are remarkable. Indeed, there was no electricity on docks at Liverpool until 1912.

12.8.5 Assessment of impacts

Assessing individual site/monument significance

Owing to a general lack of both documentary evidence and thematic archaeological surveys, the manner in which the importance of pre- AD 1700 archaeological sites in a small study area are assessed can often be a subjective process. In the period from about 1800 to the present, however, site or monument value/importance can more readily assessed, based on the increasing availability of written sources such as business records, correspondence, newspaper accounts and, of course pre- and ordnance survey cartographic sources. Other factors such as rarity, group value, condition and historic, cultural or scientific associations are also important (Table 12.8.1).



Table 12.8.1 Assessment of significance and expected type of mitigation

International significant

(protected structure)

National significant

(protected structure)

Regional significance

(unprotected)

Local significance

Or not rated

To be avoided

To be avoided Avoidance recommended

Avoidance unnecessary

After a full consideration of the available evidence for the structures and features to be directly impacted upon by the proposed development, the assessment of their significance is summarised in Table 12.8.2. None of the structures are rated and the following ratings are the opinion of Dr Colin Rynne.

Table 12.8.2 Assessment of significance of structures and features within study area

SITE NO.

NGR SITE DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION PERIOD

SIGNIFICANCE

DP.01 718451, 734367


Quayside constructed with mass concrete block system developed by Bindon Blood Stoney

1869-1884 Not rated but construction technology considered by Dr Colin Rynne to be international

DP.02 718587, 734388

Goods transit shed No. 3 (‘Island Shed’), North Wall Quay Extension

No visible remains but foundations likely to survive under present surface

19th century NOT RATED

DP.03 718536, 734581




DP.04 718691, 734362




DP.05 718752, 734319

North Wall Light

Light house in steel, rivetted sections (replaces earlier light of 1809)

1906, moved to present position c. 1937

Not rated but considered Regional

DP.06 718072, 734613

Crossberth Quay

Constructed by Bindon Blood Stoney

1885 Not rated but considered Regional



SITE NO.


SIGNIFICANCE

DP.07 718595, 743658

Alexandra Wharf

Originally constructed for Anglo-American Oil Co.

1889 NOT RATED

DP.08 718316, 734789

Graving Dock No. 1

Constructed by Bindon Blood Stoney

1860 Not rated but considered National

DP.09 718336, 734733

‘Pump House’ (Graving Dock No. 1)

Single storey, two room brick engine house

1900s Not rated but considered Regional

DP.10 718370, 734789

Graving Dock No. 2

1951-59 Not rated but considered Regional

DP.11 718343, 734589

Lead-in jetty 1950s NOT RATED

DP.12 718605, 734671

Alexandra Quay West

Quay constructed with Joseph Mallagh’s concrete caissons

1921-32 Not rated but construction technology considered by Dr Colin Rynne to be international

DP.13 718460, 734556

Goulding’s (Tara Mines) Jetty

1969-67 NOT RATED

DP.14 718500, 734550

P&O Ramp No. 4

1970s NOT RATED

DP.15 718091, 734448

P&O Head Offices

1970s NOT RATED

DP.16 718139, 734423

P&O Terminal Building

1970s NOT RATED

DP.17 718080, 734553

VMU Building

1970s NOT RATED

DP.18 718066, 734578

Control building (P&O)

1970s NOT RATED

DP.19 718307, 734878

Store, Graving Dock 2

1960s NOT RATED

DP. 20 718341, 734891


1960s NOT RATED

DP. 21 718351, 734891


1960s Not rated but considered Regional



SITE NO.


SIGNIFICANCE

DP. 22 718337, 734872

Workshop, Graving Dock 2

1970s Not rated but construction technology considered by Dr Colin Rynne to be international

DP. 23 718339, 734854


1960s NOT RATED

DP. 24 718391, 743479

Grain conveyor building

1960s NOT RATED

DP. 25 718399, 734742


1960s NOT RATED

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment & Capital Dredging Environmental Impact Statement


Figure 12.8.1 Location of industrial archaeological sites in survey area



12.8.6 Assessment of impacts within study area

In accordance with the existing EPA Guidelines (2005) the predicted degree of impact can be:

Profound

Significant

Moderate

Slight

Imperceptible

In addition these can either be positive or negative.

The proposed development will involve the following works:

The infilling of Graving Dock # 2 having an area of 6,055 sq m.

The excavation and restoration of historic Graving Dock # 1 together with the restoration of the associated pump house and lighting standard in conservation zone H

The removal of an area of infill material of c. 9,000 sq m within Alexandra Basin West

The relocation of the ore concentrates loading system within Alexandra Basin West

The relocation of double deck ramp No 4 to the proposed new river berth at existing Berths Nos. 52 and 53

The demolition and removal of

The bulk jetty and grain conveyor having an area of c. 3,200 sq m.

4 no. buildings housing offices, terminal, control and V.M.U. functions having a total area of c. 1,200 sq m.

A floating ramp on the Liffey side

A lead-in jetty within the Basin

Part of North Wall Quay Extension to the north and east having a total area of c. 21,700 sq m.

The construction of

New quay walls at North Wall Extension of circa 910 metres with the conservation of the remainder of the quay behind the new quay walls. The quay walls to the Liffey frontage to be built in sections with the existing quay wall exposed in 5 zones for conservation purposes in conservation zones A to F

An extension of Alexandra Quay of circa 145m in length.



A reconfigured rounded quay end using salvaged stone material from demolished sections of quay in Interpretive Zone 2

Interpretive glass pavilions having an area of c. 36 sq m. on the west of the reconfigured North Wall Quay Extension and the reconstruction and presentation of a salvaged historic concrete caisson from the demolished section of quay in interpretive zone 1

300 m long Ro-Ro jetty and provision of 3 no. Ro-Ro ramps

The taking down of the existing lighthouse and its reconstruction at the end of the newly configured North Wall Quay Extension in interpretive zone 2

Rebuilding of existing quay walls in the remainder of Alexandra Basin having an aggregate length of c. 1,220 m.

The provision of Conservation zone G involving the conservation of the western iron gates, boundary wall, the original quay wall together with the hexagonal entrance building to the tunnel

The expected impact on the features and structures identified above are summarised below in Table 12.8.3.

Table 12.8.3 Summary of likely impacts of development on industrial archaeological features and built environment of the study area

Site no. Ngr Site Significance Impact type Impact assessment

DP.01 718451, 734367


Not rated but construction technology considered International

Direct Negative: Significant

DP.02 718587,

734388


Not rated Direct Negative: Profound and irreversible

DP.03 718536, 734581



DP.04 718691, 734362

Goods transit shed No. 2, North Wall Quay Extension


DP.05 718752,

734319

North Wall Lighthouse


Direct Significant/positive

DP.06 718072, Crossberth Not rated but Direct Significant/positive



Site no. Ngr Site Significance Impact type Impact assessment

734613 Quay considered Regional

DP.07 718595,

743658

Alexandra Wharf

NOT RATED Direct Significant/positive

DP.08 718316, 734789

Graving Dock

No. 1

Not rated but considered National

Direct Moderate/positive

DP.09 718336, 734733

‘Pump House’ (Graving Dock

No. 1)


Direct Moderate/positive

DP.10 718370, 734789

Graving Dock

No. 2


Direct Moderate but reversible/positve

DP.11 718343, 734589

Lead-in jetty NOT RATED Direct Profound and irreversible

DP.12 718605, 734671

Alexandra Quay West

Not rated but construction technology considered by Dr Colin Rynne to be international

Direct Negative: Significant

DP.13 718460, 734556

Goulding’s (Tara Mines) Jetty

NOT RATED Direct Negative: Profound and irreversible

DP.14 718500, 734550

PO Ramp No. 4


DP. 21 718351, 734891



DP. 22 718337, 734872

Workshop, Graving Dock 2


DP. 23 718339, 734854



DP. 24 718391, 743479



DP. 25 718399, 734742





12.8.7 Mitigation measures

Archaeological recording

All buildings and features which will experience potential impacts, regardless of significance or the extent of that impact, will be recorded to level three inventory standard. This will include full measured, written, drawn and photographic surveys of all buildings and features of interest identified within the survey area.

In addition, all of these features, including quay furniture affected by the development, such as bollards, mooring rings, crane tramway lines, standard gauge (i.e. 5ft 3in) railway tracks and limestone paving sets, will be 3D laser scanned, to produce a point cloud, and thus an accurate 3D rendering, 'as found', of the entire dock landscape associated with Alexandra basin.

A comprehensive 3D photographic survey of the Alexandra Basin using a drone.

Structural analysis and condition surveys will be undertaken on all structures and features of industrial archaeological interest identified within the study area. By this means potentially negative impacts may be minimised, while positive impacts such as the conservation of standing buildings may be enhanced.

An integrated conservation strategy for Alexandra Basin West

A detailed Conservation Strategy has been formulated for all sections of the proposed alteration to the basin, by Southgate Associates in association with MOLA Architecture (under separate cover). The internationally significant North Wall Quay Extension, for example, has been divided into five conservation zones, which will facilitate legibility of the original quay wall, conservation of a 55 m length of quay in its original state in conservation zone A, a visual appreciation of the original mooring rings through specially designed opening in the proposed new, concrete quay wall in conservation zones BCD and F. A central staircase is to be shown in a designed opening in conservation zone E. The present North Wall Light will be dismantled and relocated on a granite plinth reconstructed from the original curved granite blocks located at the western extremity of the new quay in interpretation zone 2. This strategy involves policies based on ICOMOS Dublin Principles (2011/2012).

The engineering design intervention has been detailed to a high standard in a contemporary manner to be legible against conserved historic fabric.

The stone-lined graving dock (No. 1) built by Stoney in 1860, but filled in 2008, will be emptied of fill and be put on public display. A conservation proposal for the early twentieth-century ‘pump house’ adjacent to the graving dock has also been prepared as part of the proposed development, this has been designed with due regard to interpretive potential use in the future.

Important features of Graving Dock No. 2 such as the electrically powered capstans will be relocated elsewhere on the site, whilst the 1950s electric jib crane, which survives in situ next to the dock, along with two further examples, one on Alexandra Quay West and the other on South Bank Quay (outside the project area), will be dismantled and fully re-erected near the dock basin. Similar cranes have been successfully preserved at Bristol Industrial Museum. Other 1950s examples survive as exhibits at the India Dock, London, on Manchester’s Salford Quays and on the Manchester Ship canal.



An Interpretive scheme (INTERPRETIVE ZONE 1)

An interpretive scheme to promote the built heritage of the Alexandra Basin West area, incorporating the research conducted to date on the history and industrial archaeology of the site, has been developed by MOLA Architecture. This includes on site interpretation of the area’s heritage along with public access to selected areas of it. As part of this programme, Bindon Stoney’s original diving bell, currently on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, is being conserved to facilitate public appreciation of this remarkable survival. (This initiative is happening independently of the ABR Project and is not part of the ABR Project application to An Bord Pleanála).

The implementation of this scheme will significantly enhance public access, physically and intellectually, to the unique industrial landscape. In addition, a central feature of the Conservation Strategy is the creation of a public realm scheme (see below) in which one of Bindon Blood Stoney's original concrete blocks will be on public display in interpretation zone 1 while a pedestrian priority zone will provide public access to the newly relocated lighthouse in Interpretation Zone 2.

Policy of Interpretive zones

The Public Access to the curtilage of the ABR Project is will demonstrate DPC’s commitment to integrate its heritage with the City.

The proposal to erect an architectural set-piece, in a publicly accessible “zone”, inspired by the engineering history and legacy of the Alexandra Basin is central to the strategy This proposal complements the DPC’s funded “Diving Bell” project on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay (which is due to go to construction at the time of writing and is not part of the ABR Project planning application).

Salvaging an intact “Block” form the reconfigured North Wall Quay Extension, is a central “conservation” objective, and measures will be put in place at construction stage to maximise the possibility of intact salvage.

Policy of Public Access

Areas of the Basin and Port properties will be fully publicly accessible, under DPC’s supervision, including “controlled” access to the conserved Graving Dock No. 1, the Pump House and its immediate curtilage.

Policy of soft values

DPC’s “Soft Values” Strategic Framework includes policy measures for representation of Bindon Blood Stoney’s Diving Bell, which was an essential enabler of the construction of the Basin. This initiative will be complemented in the Basin in the proposal interpretive set piece in the publicly accessible area/zone of the Basin.

Ground Plane policy North Wall Quay Extension

This delineates and proposes a detailed design which links the Publicly Accessible “Zones 1 and 2” with circulation routes for controlled supervised public access.



Lighting Strategy

MOLA Architecture has developed lighting proposals relating to the conservation strategy focussed on conveying the essential substance of the conservation strategy in night-time, with particular reference to its legibility from vantage points in the city.

Salvage

As a result of dismantling a section of the quay a considerable quantity of 19th century durable granite blocks will become available. A quantity of 10% can be reused on the scheme and the remainder will be stockpiled for future schemes.

Salvage Policy

DPC will consider proposals from worthy conservation projects requiring granite blocks for repair of significant historic structures. This will be influenced by advice from Local Authority, Heritage Council, DAHG etc.

12.8.8 Residual impacts

When the various mitigation measures outlined in the previous section have been carried the only residual impacts will effect features and buildings which have been either fully or partially preserved in situ. These include:

Table 12.8.4 Residual impacts of development on industrial archaeological features and built environment of the study area

Area Piling/ Construction Stage

Decay (Long term issues)

Lighthouse Low Low

North Wall Quay Extension Low Low

Alexandra Wharf Low Low

Alexandra Quay West Low Low

Pumphouse, N/A Low

Graving Dock # 1 N/A Low

Graving Dock # 2 Low Low

Crossberth Quay

N/A Low



Discussion of Residual impacts:

Lighthouse

The lighthouse has responded well to being moved in the past and the residual impact is expected to be low.

Mitigation

The lighthouse is to be moved in one piece by a special lifting frame as shown in the Southgate Associates Conservation Strategy report. The lighthouse corrosion treatment is to be carried out in accordance with the specification in the conservation strategy document. The final lifting method statement is to be approved by a conservation engineer and a final condition record with maintenance plan is to be issued at the end of the project.


Piling within 3m of North Wall Quay Extension will have low impacts on the massive 350 tonne Stoney blocks. Exposure to fill rather than salt water would have low residual impact. The wall is to be isolated from the fill to allow for reversibility and to avoid damage to the granite.

Regarding decay

Decay is noted in the granite as a result of wetting and drying cycles (Freeze /thaw and crypto efflorescence) and this will reduce in the buried condition.

Mitigation

Construction piling method statement will be approved by a Conservation Engineer and monitored. The piling operations on the North Wall Quay Extension will be monitored for vibration to ensure that the limits recommended in BS5228-2:2009 are not exceeded.

Alexandra Quay West, Alexandra Wharf, Crossberth Quay Piling within 3m of North Wall Quay Extension will have low impacts on the caisson constructions. Exposure to fill rather than sea would have low residual impact.

Regarding decay

Decay is not anticipated in the concrete with less exposure to atmosphere (ie carbonation frost and other corrosive effects).

Mitigation



Construction piling method statement will be approved by a Conservation Engineer and monitored. The piling operations will be monitored for vibration to ensure that the limits recommended in BS5228-2:2009 are not exceeded.

Graving Dock #1

This will be re exposed to atmospheric pollution, vegetation growth and general exposure for which the durable Dalkey granite appears extremely resistant.

Mitigation

Methodology for excavation to avoid damage by mechanical equipment is recommended together with condition record and maintenance plan to be produced by a conservation engineer (see Conservation Strategy).

Pump House

This will be conserved in the project

Mitigation

Methodology for conservation is recommended in the conservation strategy (under separate cover). Works to be supervised by a conservation engineer and final condition record issued to the planning authority with a maintenance plan.

Graving Dock #2

The existing pair of lock gates will be positioned at the intermediate gate positions within the dock and the entrance to Alexandra Basin West will be closed by the new quay wall. A structural deck slab, supported on tubular piles, will form the new quay surface and transfer imposed loading from harbour cranes, loading hoppers and conveyors, through piles to the underlying bedrock. The suspended quay slab will also provide stability to the quay wall while protecting the underlying dock from these substantial imposed loads.

The tubular piles will be installed at locations to minimise impact on the existing dock structure through isolation sleeves; these are cored through the dock floor in advance, to minimise the impact of piling operations and future loading on the existing structure. Inclined ground anchors will be installed from the deck slab through the dock floor to provide additional stability to the primary quay wall.

If required in the future, these works can be reversed to return the graving dock to its current condition, with minimal impact on the structural fabric of the dock.

Regarding decay

Decay is not anticipated in the concrete with less exposure to atmosphere, carbonation, frost and other corrosive effects.



Mitigation

In line with the conservation strategy it is proposed to infill Graving Dock #2 with material removed from Alexandra Basin West. The material will be stabilised and then placed in the dock on a suitable separation medium, such as a sand and geotextile layer, to facilitate any future reversal of the infilling process.

Filling construction methodology to be approved by Conservation Engineer and monitored. The piling operations on the North Wall Quay Extension will be monitored for vibration to ensure that the limits recommended in BS5228-2:2009 are not exceeded.

Notes

iSkempton 1975, 97-116. ii Gilligan 1988, p. 130. iiiCox 1990, pp. 23-6. iv Cox 1990, p. 27. vdeCourcy 1996, p. 24. vi Cox and Gould 1998, p. 13. vii Cox and Gould 1998, pp. 13-14; O’Flaherty 1988, Purser Griffith 1879. viii See Cox 1990, p. 19. ix O’Mahony 1993, p. 269. x Cox 1990, p. 19. xi Gilligan 1988, p. 147-8.



13. HUMAN BEINGS

The well-being of the local and wider community within the Dublin Port area has been comprehensively addressed throughout this EIS. This chapter of the EIS details the human environment of the hinterland surrounding Dublin Port in terms of population profile and trends, employment and community aspects.

It also discusses the impact of the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project on tourism.

Other potential impacts on human beings are assessed within this EIS including:

• Impact on commercial fishing activities – Chapter 5

• Impact of landscape and visual intrusion, including lighting – Chapter 6

• Impact of noise & vibration and of air quality & climate – Chapter 7

• Impact of traffic – Chapter 8

The potential impacts of the ABR Project are described in detail within these chapters and, where appropriate, mitigation measures are presented.

13.1 BASELINE INFORMATION

Data Sources

The following main sources of information were used for this study:

• Central Statistics Office, Census Data;

• Jim Power Economics, The socio-economic aspects of the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project;

• Dublin Docklands Development Authority, Masterplan 2008;

• Fáilte Ireland, Destination Dublin: A Collective Strategy for Tourism Growth to 2020;

• Fáilte Ireland, Tourism Facts 2012;

• Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, Inc., Preparation of a Plan for the Development of Cruise Tourism in Dublin;

• Irish Exporters Association (2012), Trade and Transport Analysis; and

• The Competition Authority (2013), Competition in the Irish Ports Sector.



Study Area

The Dublin Port Estate forms part of the North Dock B District Electoral Division (DED). There are seven neighbouring DEDs shown in Figure 13.1 and listed below:

• Clontarf East B

• Clontarf East C

• Clontarf East D

• Clontarf West C

• Clontarf West D

• North Dock A

• Pembroke East A

Figure 13.1 Location of District Electoral Divisions (DEDs) in close proximity to Dublin Port Estate.



Land Use

The land which constitutes the Dublin Port Estate has been reclaimed commencing in the 17th and 18th centuries and continued through the 19th and 20th centuries. The bulk of reclamation took place in the mid 20th century (Figure 13.2). Details on the history of the area can be found in Chapter 12 - Cultural Heritage.

Figure 13.2 Historical expansion of Dublin Port (Dublin Docklands Authority Masterplan 2008)

Amenity and Tourist facilities

There are a number of amenity and recreation areas in the vicinity of the site including:

• Clontarf Waterfront; • Fairview Park; • Irishtown Nature Reserve; • Irishtown Stadium; • North Bull Island Nature Reserve; • Sandymount Strand; • Sean Moore Park; and • South Bull Wall.

The location of these local amenities is highlighted in Figure 13.3.



Figure 13.3 Location of amenities and recreation areas in close proximity to the Dublin Port Estate

Dublin Port and the surrounding area also benefits from the strong transport links to Dublin’s main tourist attractions such as:

• The O2 (0.2 km), • The Aviva Stadium (1.2km), • Croke Park (1.8km), • Dublin City Centre with its numerous bars, shops and restaurants (2km), • National Gallery of Ireland (2km) • Trinity College Library (2km), • Guinness Storehouse (4km), • Dublin Zoo (4.8km).

Population and Demographics

Population Trends

A breakdown of the population change within the relevant DEDs and the Greater Dublin Area, consisting of Dublin City, Dublin South, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and Fingal based on Census 2002 and Census 2011 is summarised in Table 13.1.



Table 13.1 Summary of Population Change in the Dublin Area (CSO, Census of Population 2002 and 2011)

AREA 2002 2011 2002-2011 % % MALES IN

2011 Dublin City 495,781 527,612 +6.4% 48.8% Dublin South 238,835 265,205 +11.0% 48.8% Dun Laoghaire Rathdown

191,792 206,261 +7.5% 47.8%

Fingal 196,413 273,991 +39.5% 49.1% Greater Dublin Area

1,122,821 1,273,069 +13.4% 48.7%

Clontarf West D 2,140 2,066 -1.0% 47.5% Clontarf West C 3,372 3,366 -0.2% 48.0% Clontarf East D 2,772 2,673 -3.6% 47.3% Clontarf East C 3,029 3,113 +2.8% 46.9% Clontarf East B 6,458 6,759 +1.8% 47.1% North Dock B 3,628 6,895 +90.0% 51.5% North Dock A 1,287 1,303 +1.2% 51.8% Pembroke East A 4,304 4,929 +14.5% 48.0% Port Environs 26,990 31,104 +15.2% 48.6% State 3,917,203 4,588,252 +17.1% 49.5%

Between 2002 and 2011:

• The population of Ireland increased by 17.1%;

• The population of the Greater Dublin Area increased by 13.4%;

• The population of Dublin City increased by 6.4%;

• The population of the DEDs adjacent to Dublin Port increased by 15.2%.

Three of the DEDs, Clontarf West D, Clontarf West C and Clontarf East D actually experienced a decline in population. The largest increase in population was in North Dock B, which increased by 90%.



Age Profile

The age profile of the population in the Greater Dublin Area is summarised in Table 13.2. Table 13.2 Age Profile in the Greater Dublin Area (CSO Census 2011) AREA POP < 15

YEARS % POP < 15 YEARS

POP >65 YEARS

% POP >65 YEARS

Dublin City 85,075 16.1% 66,490 12.6% Dublin South 64,583 24.4% 23,053 8.7% Dun Laoghaire Rathdown

40,012 19.4% 29,872 14.5%

Fingal 69,557 25.4% 19,861 7.2% Greater Dublin Area

259,227 20.4% 139,276 10.9%

Clontarf West D 270 13.1% 272 13.2% Clontarf West C 500 14.9% 381 11.3% Clontarf East D 472 17.7% 533 19.9% Clontarf East C 605 19.4% 580 18.6% Clontarf East B 1,291 19.1% 1,048 15.5% North Dock B 887 12.9% 469 6.8% North Dock A 155 11.9% 165 12.7% Pembroke East A 782 15.9% 485 9.8% Port Environs 4,962 15.9% 3,933 12.6% State 979,590 21.3% 535,392 11.7%

In the Greater Dublin Area 20.4% of the population was under the age of 15 years at the time of the 2011 Census. This is just lower than the State average of 21.3%. Within the environs of Dublin Port, just 15.9% of the population is under the age of 15 years. The percentage of the population over 65 years of age at 12.6% in the environs of Dublin Port is higher than the national average and the Greater Dublin Area. The population of the Dublin Port area is ageing faster than the national average.

Socio-Economic Groups

The breakdown of the socio economic groups of over 15s within each of the relevant electoral divisions for 2011 is tabulated in Table 13.3. The socio economic distributions of Clontarf East B, Clontarf East C, Clontarf East D and Clontarf West C are similar as are the distributions of Clontarf West D, North Dock A, North Dock B and Pembroke East A. The former grouping of DEDs has a much higher proportion of employers and professionals than the latter.



Table 13.3 Persons aged 15 and over by Socio-Economic Group for relevant DEDs, 2011 (CSO Census 2011)

A B C D E F G H I J Z

Tota

l

Empl

oyer

s an

d m

anag

ers

Hig

her p

rofe

ssio

nal

Low

er p

rofe

ssio

nal

Non

-man

ual

Man

ual s

kille

d

Sem

i-ski

lled

Uns

kille

d

Ow

n ac

coun

t wor

kers

Farm

ers

Agr

icul

tura

l wor

kers

All

othe

rs g

ainf

ully

occ

upie

d an

d un

know

n

Clontarf East B 1992 1062 1100 1070 257 228 83 359 4 3 647 6805

Clontarf East C 959 550 497 490 101 62 6 119 1 3 213 3001

Clontarf East D 764 459 416 377 70 79 33 94 4 1 269 2566

Clontarf West C 871 550 628 560 84 103 17 161 0 0 359 3333

Clontarf West D 280 215 319 476 185 126 51 62 1 4 371 2090

North Dock A 174 83 154 264 122 116 57 96 0 1 252 1319

North Dock B 914 599 812 1575 393 547 321 212 1 5 1198 6577

Pembroke East A 665 415 483 961 433 426 366 204 2 7 1033 4995

Total 6619 3933 4409 5773 1645 1687 934 1307 13 24 4342 30686

Clontarf East B 29.27% 15.61% 16.16% 15.72% 3.78% 3.35% 1.22% 5.28% 0.06% 0.04% 9.51% 100%

Clontarf East C 31.96% 18.33% 16.56% 16.33% 3.37% 2.07% 0.20% 3.97% 0.03% 0.10% 7.10% 100%

Clontarf East D 29.77% 17.89% 16.21% 14.69% 2.73% 3.08% 1.29% 3.66% 0.16% 0.04% 10.48% 100%

Clontarf West C 26.13% 16.50% 18.84% 16.80% 2.52% 3.09% 0.51% 4.83% 0.00% 0.00% 10.77% 100%

Clontarf West D 13.40% 10.29% 15.26% 22.78% 8.85% 6.03% 2.44% 2.97% 0.05% 0.19% 17.75% 100%

North Dock A 13.19% 6.29% 11.68% 20.02% 9.25% 8.79% 4.32% 7.28% 0.00% 0.08% 19.11% 100%

North Dock B 13.90% 9.11% 12.35% 23.95% 5.98% 8.32% 4.88% 3.22% 0.02% 0.08% 18.21% 100%

Pembroke East A 13.31% 8.31% 9.67% 19.24% 8.67% 8.53% 7.33% 4.08% 0.04% 0.14% 20.68% 100%

Total 21.57% 12.82% 14.37% 18.81% 5.36% 5.50% 3.04% 4.26% 0.04% 0.08% 14.15% 100%

Employment

The employment status of persons aged 15 years and over for the Greater Dublin Area and the DEDs surrounding Dublin Port in 2011 is presented in Table 13.4.

The percentage of the population in employment in the Port Environs is significantly above the Greater Dublin Area and the national average. The number of unemployed as a percentage of the population over 15 years of age in the Port Environs is lower than the Greater Dublin Area and the national average. The student population is lower than the Greater Dublin Area and the national average. All but two of the DEDs surrounding Dublin Port have a higher percentage of retired than the state as a whole. This reflects the relatively old age profile of the population in the area.



Table 13.4 Employment Status, % of Population over 15 Years of Age (CSO, Census 2011)

Area At work Looking for 1st job

Unemployed Student Home Retired Disability

Dublin City

50.8% 1.1% 10.4% 12.6% 7.1% 13.1% 4.3%

Dublin South

52.2% 1.2% 11.6% 10.9% 9.4% 10.1% 4.3%

DLR 1.9% 0.6% 6.0% 14.5% 9.2% 15.2% 2.5% Fingal 57.4% 1.1% 9.8% 10.5% 8.9% 8.8% 3.1% GDA 52.6% 1.0% 9.8% 12.2% 8.3% 12.0% 3.8% Clontarf West D

57.0% 1.1% 8.9% 10.4% 5.2% 13.6% 3.4%

Clontarf West C

62.7% 0.6% 6.2% 9.3% 5.9% 12.9% 2.1%

Clontarf East D

49.9% 0.4% 4.8% 13.2% 7.4% 21.8% 2.2%

Clontarf East C

51.0% 0.5% 3.0% 12.9% 8.4% 21.6% 2.2%

Clontarf East B

54.1% 0.6% 4.3% 12.6% 8.4% 17.6% 2.1%

North Dock B

65.3% 0.9% 9.2% 10.2% 4.6% 6.8% 2.8%

North Dock A

56.9% 1.3% 12.5% 8.9% 4.6% 12.6% 3.0%

Pembroke East A

57.2% 0.9% 10.8% 8.8% 6.4% 10.4% 4.9%

Port Environs

57.8% 0.8% 7.2% 10.9% 6.5% 13.7% 2.9%

State 50.1% 0.9% 10.8% 11.3% 9.4% 12.7% 4.4% Unemployment rates expressed as a percentage of the available labour force are considered a more accurate measure of unemployment than that presented in Table 13.4. The percentage of unemployment in the labour force is shown for the Greater Dublin Area in Table 13.5. The unemployment rate in the Port Environs at 12.2 per cent is considerably lower than the national average rate of 19 per cent and the average rate of 17.1 per cent in the Greater Dublin area.



Table 13.5 Unemployed as % of Available Labour Force (CSO, Census 2011)

AREA UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Dublin City 18.5% Dublin South 19.6% Dun Laoghaire Rathdown

11.2%

Fingal 16.0% Greater Dublin Area 17.1% Clontarf West D 14.9% Clontarf West C 9.8% Clontarf East D 9.5% Clontarf East C 6.5% Clontarf East B 8.3% North Dock B 13.4% North Dock A 19.5% Pembroke East A 17.0% Port Environs 12.2% State 19.0%

Tourism

Between 2009 and 2012, 3.64 million overseas visitors spent almost €1.3 billion in Dublin and the wider Dublin region. This spending has a significant effect in terms of business profitability and employment. Many businesses and their suppliers benefit directly from the demand for goods and services created by tourism, as do the state and local authorities as a result of increased tax revenue. It is estimated that around 50,000 people in Dublin depend wholly or largely on tourism for their income.

Dublin Port offers easy access to local amenities, the capital city and its various attractions, and to other modes of transport. The strong transport links of Dublin Port are key to tourism as it widens the sphere of influence and socio-economic benefits that the Port provides.

Cruise Tourism

Fáilte Ireland identifies the tourism sectors offering the best potential for Dublin as:

• Leisure Tourism; • Events Tourism; • Cruise Tourism; and • Business Tourism.

There has been significant expansion of the cruise liner holiday industry on a global scale in recent years and Ireland is benefiting from this. There has been very strong growth in cruise ship and passenger numbers coming through Dublin Port in recent years. The number of cruise ships visiting Dublin Port has increased from just 24 in 1992 to 100 in 2013. Over the past decade, the number of cruise passengers into Dublin has tripled, with an average annual growth rate of 12.8%. In 2013 the number of cruise visitors to Dublin passed 100,000 for the first time. Figure 13.6 shows the trends in Dublin Port's cruise business.



Figure 13.4 Trends in Dublin Port’s cruise business 2004 to 2013

It is estimated that the average cruise visitor spends approximately € 40-100 in the local economy per day. In 2013 cruise ship crew members spent an average of €48 per day. For Dublin the current annual economic impact for direct spending based upon 2013 cruise throughput is circa €12.7 m (RPS analysis based on data sourced from Bermello, Ajamil & Partners Inc report ‘Preparation of a Plan for the Development of Cruise Tourism in Dublin’). Additionally, the cruise lines spend monies on port charges, pilotage, provisions, fuel, stevedoring, etc. each time they are in port.

Developing cruise tourism therefore offers an opportunity to attract additional revenue to Dublin. This can be achieved by attracting more, and larger, cruise ships to Dublin as well as by encouraging cruise passengers to consider choosing an itinerary that includes Dublin.

Consultation

In March 2011 Dublin Port Company (DPC) commenced a year–long consultation process for the Masterplan 2012 to 2040. The process was aimed at soliciting views from a wide circle of stakeholders whose perspectives on the operations and future of the port were regarded as important.

Building on the extensive consultation carried out during the process to develop the Masterplan, DPC and their consultants RPS have carried out further extensive consultation on the ABR Project in the course of developing the current proposal.

A comprehensive programme of public consultation concerning the ABR Project was undertaken between September and November 2013 to seek the views of the wider public on the proposed ABR Project and the proposed community gain initiative to be advanced as part of the project.

Further details on the consultation carried out are available in Chapter 2 - Consultation Process.



13.2 POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Phase

The ABR Project will comprise major construction and refurbishment works which inherently have the potential to produce some negative environmental impacts on human beings as a result of increased construction traffic, noise and dust during the construction period. These potential impacts have been addressed in detail within this EIS and mitigation measures have been developed to minimize disruption to the local community.

The construction phase will however also offer benefits to the local economy through:

• Employment opportunities in the construction and related industries; and • Increased revenue for the services sector as a result of spending by construction

workers.

The ABR Project can be broken down into 5 stages:

• Stage 1: Preconstruction Stage and Advance Works;

• Stage 2: Alexandra Basin West Construction Works;

• Stage 3: Berth 52 Construction Works, Further Works at Alexandra Basin West, Re-location of Operations;

• Stage 4: North Quay Wall Extension & Marina Wall Construction Works; and

• Stage 5: Dredging Works.

In order to highlight the socio-economic benefits of the construction works, employment levels, wage payment and tax contributions are estimated for each stage in Tables 13.6 – 13.10.

In addition the newly generated net income will increase spending in the area, which becomes an increase of income to the local service industries. The multiplier effect refers to the estimated increase in economic benefit to the area arising from the ABR Project’s construction phase.



Table 13.6 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 1 - Preconstruction Stage and Advance

Works

Activity No. Duration Annual Wage Total Wage Tax Net Wage

Design Staff

15 1.9 Years €40,674 €1,159,209 €289,802 €869,407

Site Operatives

5 0.5 Years €37,600 €94,000 €23,500 €70,500

Total €1,253,209 €313,302 €939,907

Multiplier Effect

€1,879,818

Table 13.7 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 2 - Alexandra Basin West Construction Works


Site Staff 32 1.75 Years €37,600 €2,105,600 €526,400 €1,579,200

Site Operatives

80 1.75 Years €37,600 €5,264,000 €1,316,000 €3,948,000

Design Staff

24 1.75 Years €40,674 €1,708,308 €427,077 €1,281,231

Total €9,077,908 €2,269,477 €6,808,431

Multiplier Effect

€13,616,862

Table 13.8 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 3 – Berth 52 Construction Works, Further Works at Alexandra Basin West, Re-location of Operations


Site Staff 16 1.6 Years €37,600 €962,560 €240,640 €721,920

Site Operatives

40 1.6 Years €37,600 €2,406,400 €601,600 €1,804,800

Design Staff

12 1.6 Years €40,674 €780,940 €195,235 €585,705

Total €4,149,900 €1,037,475 €3,112,425

Multiplier Effect

€6,224,850



Table 13.9 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 4 - North Quay Wall Extension & Marina Wall Construction Works

Activity No. Duration Annual Wage

Total Wage Tax Net Wage

Site Staff – North Q

16 1.25 Years

€37,600 €752,000 €188,000 €564,000

Site Operatives – North Q

40 1.25 Years

€37,600 €1,880,000 €470,000 €1,410,000

Design Staff –North Quay

12 1.25 Years

€40,674 €610,110 €152,527 €457,583

Site Staff – Marina Wall

4 0.5 Years €37,600 €75,200 €18,800 €56,400

Site Operatives – Marina Wall

10 0.5 Years €37,600 €188,000 €47,000 €141,000

Design Staff – Marina Wall

3 0.5 Years €40,674 €61,011 €15,252 €45,759

Total €3,566,321 €891,579 €2,674,742

Multiplier Effect €5,349,484

Table 13.10 Socio Economic benefits of Stage 5 - Dredging Works

Activity No. Duration Annual Wage

Total Wage

Tax Net Wage

Channel Dredging

15 3 Years €37,600 €1,692,000 €423,000 €1,269,000

Site Staff – Bull Wall

4 1.6 Years €37,600 €240,640 €60,160 €180,480

Site Operatives – Bull Wall

10 1.6 Years €37,600 €601,600 €150,400 €451,200

Design Staff – Bull Wall

3 1.6 Years €40,674 €195,235 €48,808 €146,427

Dredging - Alexandra Basin

10 1.6 Years €37,600 €601,600 €150,400 €451,200

Treatment & Placement - Site Staff

2 1.6 Years €37,600 €120,320 €30,080 €90,240

Treatment & Placement - Site Operatives

20 1.6 Years €37,600 €1,203,200 €300,800 €902,400

Treatment & Placement - Design Staff

2 1.6 Years €40,674 €130,156 €32,539 €97,617

Total €4,784,751 €1,196,187 €3,588,564

Multiplier Effect €7,177,128



Tables 13.6 to 13.10 estimate 375 workers will be employed on the site for varying lengths of time on different aspects of the project. Due to these employment levels it is estimated that over the construction period the following financial flows will occur:

• Gross wages paid out €22.8 million;

• Labour tax payments to the Exchequer €5.7 million;

• Net wages paid out €17.1 million; and

• Assuming a conservative income multiplier effect of 2, this net wage could result in an injection of €34.2 million into the broader economy.

Further details on the construction activities associated with the redevelopment are available in Chapter 4 - Project Description.

Operational Phase

The ABR project will play a key role in Dublin Port’s plans to meet the demands of a predicted 60 million tonnes cargo throughput by 2040. The Irish economic model is heavily based on exports. In 2012, merchandise exports accounted for 52.4% of GDP and merchandise imports accounted for 30.2% of GDP. Irish seaports handle around 84% of Ireland’s trade in volume and 62% in value terms based on data from Irish exporters Association (2012). Dublin Port dominates Ireland’s merchandise trade movements. It handles more than two thirds of containerised trade to and from Ireland and half of Ireland’s imports and exports.

Dublin Port Company employs more than 140 people directly, but a further 4,000 people are employed in what is Ireland’s largest industrial estate. The ABR Project will help to secure existing employment at the Dublin Port Estate and provide opportunities for further employment associated with the continued growth in trade.

Cruise Tourism Dublin Port also handles 1.6 million passengers through the ferry companies that operate out of the Port and the cruise vessels that call to the Port. The ABR Project will also play a key role in supporting cruise tourism as outlined below:

"This is an area of tourism that has increased substantially in recent years, and there is real potential to grow both the number of cruise ships that visit Dublin and the value that cruise tourists bring to the city and region." Fáilte Ireland A recent study by Bermello, Ajamil & Partners for Dublin Port estimates that cruise traffic can continue to grow at a rate exceeding 8% a year, reaching 200,000 passengers by 2020 and circa 350,000 by 2032 (Further details are presented in Chapter 1 - Introduction). The cruise industry provides a wide variety of direct and indirect socio-economic benefits to the communities they visit based upon passenger and crew spending; provisions required by the vessels including food & beverage, fuel and other supplies; tourism venues, guides, coaches; taxis; port and operational charges; air and hotel for homeport operations; and numerous secondary impacts based upon trickle down spending.



In terms of potential employment, Fáilte Ireland suggests that 1000 additional tourists support 15 jobs in the tourism and associated industries. A projection of the overall economic impacts to Dublin from the cruise line industry from 2013 to 2043, prepared by Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, is shown in Figure 13.5.

Figure 13.5 Dublin total economic impacts from cruise tourism, 2013 - 2043 (Bermello,

Ajamil & Partners) The total contribution to Dublin from cruise tourism has the potential to increase from €45 million in 2013 to more than €515 million in 2043. These projections assume that it is most likely that Dublin will remain port-of-call dominant. Longer term efforts made to persuade cruise planners to consider using Dublin as a turn-around port and inter-porting hub, in order to establish a more significant and longer-term role for Dublin City and Region within the European cruise scene, will enhance the economic benefits from cruise tourism in Dublin further still. Do Nothing Impact

In the absence of the proposed project, the socio-economic benefits from cruise tourism are likely to plateau and eventually subside because of limitations associated with the size of ships which can be accommodated at the port. The maximum size of ship which can be accommodated in Dublin Port is currently circa 300m. However the trend is for larger ships as shown in Figure 13.6.



Figure 13.6 Projected percentage of cruise ships over 300 metres worldwide, 2012 -

2040 (Bermello, Ajamil & Partners) 13.3 MITIGATION MEASURES

Construction Phase

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be developed which will collate all mitigation measures contained within this EIS together with all conditions applied by An Bord Pleánala.

The development of the CEMP will include continued consultation with statutory bodies, interested parties and the local communities.

The CEMP will form part of the Specification for the Construction Works, thereby contractually binding Contractors to adhere to the mitigation measures as well as providing Contractors with the opportunity to price for the inclusion of the mitigation measures. Dublin Port Company will encourage Contractors to utilise local construction workers where it is practical to do so. Safe working practices, in accordance with current legislation, will be enforced during the construction period to protect construction workers, port operators and visitors to the construction sites. The construction sites will be suitably fenced and access to the sites shall be limited to authorised personnel.



Operational Phase

The ABR Project will play a key role in providing the necessary infrastructure required for continued growth within the port. It will therefore provide an overall beneficial socio-economic impact.

The new berth configuration proposed in Alexandra Basin West involves the extension of Berth 29 on Alexandra Quay West westwards in front of the entrance to Graving Dock #2. As a result, the port will lose the utility of this graving dock.

The operation of graving docks was always financially challenging and the pressure on DPC to make best use of the Port’s existing estate allied to the poor commercial returns from the Port’s Graving Dock combine to make the provision of additional berthing space at the entrance to Graving Dock #2 a more suitable use of the scarce land resource.

The poor financial return from Graving Dock #2 represents an underutilisation of port assets and is sufficient reason alone for DPC now to reconfigure the graving dock and its 1.4 hectare curtilage. Commercially, DPC earns about one sixth of what would be earned by an equivalent land area elsewhere in the Port close to working berths.

13.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

The ABR Project will provide an overall positive socio-economic benefit through direct and in-direct employment opportunities associated with the predicted growth in trade and in tourism associated with cruise ships. There will however be an unavoidable loss associated with ship repairs as a result of the closure of Graving Dock #2 within the Alexandra Basin West.



14. INTERACTIONS AND IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS

Chapters 5 to 13 of this EIS assess the likely significant impacts arising from the ABR Project and present mitigation measures to reduce the residual impact to acceptable levels. This chapter describes the interactions between the various aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessments and in-combination effects with other plans or programmes.

14.1 INTERACTIONS

The main interactions between the various aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessments are presented in Table 14.1. A brief description of the interactions is presented overleaf.

Table 14.1 Interactions

Flora & Fauna

Landscape &

Visual

Air &

Clim

ate

Material A

ssets

Coastal

Processes

Water

Geology &

Soils

Cultural H

eritage

Hum

an Beings

Flora & Fauna

Landscape & Visual (A)

Air & Climate (B) (F)

Material Assets None None (I)

Coastal Processes (C) None None None

Water (D) None (J) None (N)

Geology & Soils (E) None (K) None (O) (R)

Cultural Heritage None (G) None None (P) None None

Human Beings None (H) (L) (M) (Q) None None (S)



Description of interactions between the Environmental Impact Assessment topics

A Interaction between Flora & Fauna and Landscape & Visual

The ABR Project has the potential to alter terrestrial habitats, notably the demolition of buildings which may be used by bats.

B Interaction between Flora & Fauna and Air & Climate

Construction noise, particularly from piling activities associated with the quay walls creates underwater noise which can be harmful to cetaceans, seals and fish. Construction noise also has the potential to temporarily disturb birds.

C Interaction between Flora & Fauna and Coastal Processes

The dispersal, fate and deposition of sediments arising from dredging and disposal operations has the potential to impact on birds, marine mammals, benthic ecology and fisheries.

D Interaction between Flora & Fauna and Water

The potential risk of pollution incidents to water during the construction and operational phases of the ABR Project can be harmful to birds, marine mammals benthic ecology and fisheries.

E Interaction between Flora & Fauna and Geology and Soils

There is a potential risk associated with the dredging and treatment of contaminated sediments from Alexendra Basin West resulting in losses to the receiving waters which can be harmful to birds, marine mammals benthic ecology and fisheries.

F Interaction between Landscape & Visual and Air & Climate

The potential requirement for noise mitigation measures can have a visual impact.

G Interaction between Landscape & Visual and Cultural Heritage

The ABR Project has the potential to impact on built heritage aspects of the existing port including the North Quay Wall Extension and Lighthouse thereby giving rise to a visual impact.

H Interaction between Landscape & Visual and Human Beings

The proposed works at Alexandra Basin West has the potential to alter the landscape character and visual impact, including lighting, from nearby viewpoints.



I Interaction between Air & Climate and Material Assets

Construction traffic and increased operational traffic has the potential to impact on air quality.

J Interaction between Air & Climate and Water

Construction noise, particularly from piling activities associated with the quay walls creates underwater noise which can be harmful to cetaceans, seals and fish.

K Interaction between Air & Climate and Geology & Soils

The temporary storage of dredge material prior to treatment has the potential to cause a dust nuisance. General construction works associated with demolition and the movement of materials can also give rise to a dust nuisance.

L Interaction between Air & Climate and Human Beings

During the construction phase, the generation for noise, dust, odour, gaseous emissions and vibration has the potential to temporarily disturb people, therefore mitigation measures have been proposed. During the operational phase, there is a potential risk of noise and emissions to air from increased port activity.

M Interaction between Material Assets and Human Beings

The ABR Project has the potential to increase the traffic on roads adjacent to the Dublin Port Estate.

N Interaction between Coastal Processes and Water

The dispersal, fate and deposition of sediments arising from dredging and disposal operations has the potential to impact on water quality which in turn can impact on birds, marine mammals, benthic ecology and fisheries.

O Interaction between Coastal Processes and Geology and Soils

The capital dredging scheme has the potential to impact on the sediment transport regime in Dublin Bay.

P Interaction between Coastal Processes and Cultural Heritage

The capital dredging scheme has the potential to disturb known or unknown marine archaeology

Q Interaction between Coastal Processes and Human Beings

The construction of the ABR Project has the potential to temporarily impact on other users of Dublin Bay and the River Liffey Channel including commercial and recreational fishermen



and yachtsmen.

R Interaction between Water and Geology & Soils

The dredging and treatment of contaminated sediments from Alexander Basin West has the potential to release contaminants to the receiving waters and groundwater.

S Interaction between Cultural Heritage and Human Beings

The ABR Project has the potential to impact on built heritage aspects of the existing port including the North Quay Wall Extension and Lighthouse which are of historic interest.

Interaction between the environmental experts who have undertaken the environmental impact assessments has taken place on a continual basis throughout the preparation of the EIS. This has enabled the environmental assessment of each topic to take into consideration the issues associated with all other topics and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to eliminate the risk of potential impact or to reduce the potential risk to an acceptable level.

Interaction has also taken place between the environmental experts and the engineering design team on a continual basis in order to integrate the environmental mitigation measures with the engineering design of the project.

During the preparation of the EIS, fortnightly meetings were held among the Environmental team, Engineering team and Dublin Port Company. Two formal workshops were also held specifically to address interactions among the teams.

14.2 IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS

An assessment was made of other projects, plans or programmes in the general vicinity of the ABR Project during the preparation of the EIS in order to assess in-combination effects with other projects, plans and programmes.

This assessment was also undertaken within the scope of the Habitats Directive Assessment – Natura Impact Statement (under separate cover).

The in-combination assessment commenced during the preparation of the Dublin Port Masterplan (February 2012) which was supported by a non-statutory Strategic Environmental assessment (SEA) and Strategic Natura Impact Statement.

Relevant projects, plans and programmes were assessed for their potential to have in combination effects with the Dublin Port Masterplan. Preliminary screening assessment indicated that ten projects had possible significant impacts, whilst eight projects had no impact.



The majority of the projects were subject to Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment. These assessments either identified no impacts on Natura 2000 sites or proposed mitigation to ensure that no impacts would take place.

The key projects with the potential for in-combination effects, particularly with respect to Natura 2000 sites, were:

• S2S Sutton to Sandycove Project;

• Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project; and

• Dublin Eastern Bypass.

S2S Sutton to Sandycove Project and Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Projects

The assessment of in-combination effects identified the S2S project to have a number of potential impacts to the North Bull Island SPA and the South Dublin Bay & River Tolka Estuary SPA. The Appropriate Assessment report for the S2S Project proposed a number of mitigation measures in relation to the proposed scheme and concluded on the basis of these that there will be no impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.

Since the publication of the Masterplan a Part 8 planning application has been made by Dublin City Council in relation to the S2S Cycleway and Footway, interim works between Bull Road (Wooden Bridge) and Causeway Road. This is an interim scheme comprising elements of two projects, the Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) and the North City Arterial Watermain (NCAM) both of which received planning approval from An Bord Pleanála in May 2013. Both projects were separately assessed as having no adverse effect on the integrity of any Natura 2000 site. Consequently, no in-combination effects with the ABR Project are envisaged.

The Eastern By-Pass

The Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, Policy S19 states that “It is the policy of Dublin City Council To support the provision of a link between north Dublin Port and the Southern Cross/South Eastern Motorway via an eastern by-bass of the city, in conjunction with and co-operation with other transport bodies, the National Road Authority and local authorities. The preferred method is by means of a bored tunnel and the preferred route is under Sandymount Strand and Booterstown Marsh. However the route and detailed design of the link road will be subject to an environmental impact Assessment and all statutory requirements, including a public consultation process, by the relevant authorities. An appropriate assessment of the proposed project for the entire route is also required in accordance with the Habitats Directive.”

The Eastern By-pass is not likely to proceed until after 2030, at the earliest. It would therefore be too premature to assess in-combination impacts with the ABR Project.



14.3 THE NEXT STEP

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be developed in the next stage of the process, should planning permission be granted by An Bord Pleánala. The objective of the CEMP is to capture all mitigation measures within the Environmental Impact Statement together with any conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála and to provide additional detail in order to develop a practical programme of measures for the Contractor. The CEMP will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction stage.

The CEMP will include:

• Traffic Management Plan

• Waste Management Plan

• Noise Management Plan

• Dust Management Plan

• Contamination Strategy

• Marine Mammal Observation Plan

• Marine Archaeology Management Plan

• Industrial Heritage Conservation Plan

• Water Quality Management Plan

• Establishment of lines of communication, reporting and actions

The preparation of the CEMP will require continual engagement with a range of interested parties/stakeholders including Dublin City Council, EPA, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht, National Roads Authority, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Commissioners of Irish Lights, Dublin Port tenants and local community groups.

A Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme will also be developed. The objective of the Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme is to provide additional safeguards to the receiving environment during the construction phase of the works. The monitoring programme will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction stage.

The design of the Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme will include the following elements:



• An assessment using 3-D hydrodynamic computational modelling and water quality modelling to design the placement of a number of water quality monitoring buoys and telemetry based warning systems.

• The establishment of water quality trigger levels and corresponding actions

• The design of noise and dust monitoring programmes

• Scheduling of Marine Mammal Observers and Marine Archaeological Observers

The preparation of the Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme will require continual engagement with a range of interested parties/stakeholders including Dublin City Council, EPA, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht, power station operators, Dublin Port tenants and local community groups.

Monitoring programmes already established, particularly in relation to birds, will continue prior to construction, during construction and post construction. This will provide additional information on seasonal and annual variations particularly with respect of the qualifying interest species within the adjacent SPA and for the tern colonies within the harbour estate.

14.4 TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

This EIS was prepared over a one year period during which time extensive baseline surveys were undertaken.

The EIS benefited from earlier work undertaken for the Port’s Masterplan and associated Strategic Environmental assessment.

As a result, there were no technical difficulties encountered during the preparation of this EIS.


IBE0807/EIS01 B1 [Final]

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

Chapter 1 Introduction

Dublin Port Company, 2012. Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012 – 2040

Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

EPA, 2002. Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements.

EPA 2003. Advice Notes on Current Practice in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements.

Dublin Port Masterplan 2012 to 2040. Dublin Port Company

Cruise Tourism in Ireland Research Report 2010. Failte Eireann

National Ports Policy 2013 Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport

Local Action Plan, City of Dublin, Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration of City Port Heritage. Dublin City Council and Others

Dublin Port Company Internal Report No. 3 Analysis of Options for Cruise Vessels

Draft Poolbeg Planning Scheme 2008. Dublin Docklands Development Authority

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2010- 2016.

Dun Laoghaire Harbour Masterplan June 2011. Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

Antrim, Ballymena and Larne Area Plan 2016

Belfast Development Plan 2015

Banbridge/Newry and Mourne Area Plan 2015

Louth County Development Plan 2009-2015

Fingal Development Plan 2011-2017

County Wicklow Development Plan 2010-2016

Co Wexford Development Plan 2013-2019



Rosslare Harbour and Kilrane Local Area Plan 2012-2018

County Waterford Development Plan 2011-2017

County Kilkenny Development Plan 2008-2014

National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020

National Development Plan 2007-2013

National Ports Policy 2013

Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016


Transport 21

Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008

North Lotts and Grand Canal Planning Scheme

Dublin Bay- An Integrated Economic, Cultural and Social Vision for Sustainable Development

Local Action Plan- City of Dublin

Atkins, 2011. – Origin – Destination Study for Dublin Port

Chapter 5 Flora and Fauna

Birds

Benson, L. 2009. Use of inland feeding sites by Light-bellied Brent geese in Dublin 2008-2009: a new conservation concern. Irish Birds 8: 563-570.

Boland, H. and Crowe, O. 2012. Irish Wetland Bird Survey: waterbird status and distribution 2001/02-2008/09. BirdWatch Ireland. Kilcoole.

Burton, N.H.K., Musgrove, A.J. and Rehfisch, M.M. 2004. Tidal variation in numbers of waterbirds: how frequently should birds be counted to detect change and do low tide counts provide a realistic average? Bird Study 51: 48-57.

Camphuysen, C.J., Fox, A.D., Leopold, M.F. and Petersen, I.K. 2004. Towards standardised seabirds and sea census techniques in connection with environmental impact assessments for offshore windfarms in the UK. Report commissioned by COWRIE. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. Texel. The Netherlands.



Crowe, O. 2005. Ireland’s Wetlands and their Waterbirds: Status and Distribution. BirdWatch Ireland. Newcastle.

Crowe, O. 2006. A review of the wintering waterbirds of Dublin Bay. 1994/95 to 2003/04. Irish East Coast Bird Report 2002: 123-129.

Crowe, O., Boland, H. and Walsh, A. 2012. Irish Wetland Bird Survey: Results of waterbird monitoring in Ireland in 2010/11. Irish Birds 9: 397-410.

Dublin City Council 2012. Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Works Extension. Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 9: Terrestrial Flora and Fauna. Dublin City Council.

Essink, K. 1999. Ecological effects of dumping of dredged sediments; options for management. Journal of Coastal Conservation 5, 69-80.

Ferguson-Lees, J., Castell, R. and Leech, D. 2011. A Field Guide to Monitoring Nests. British Trust for Ornithology. Thetford.

Greenwood, J.G. 1987. Winter visits by Black Guillemots Cepphus grille to an Irish breeding site. Bird Study 34, 135-136.

Greenwood, J.G. 1991. Duration of winter visits by Black Guillemots Cepphus grille to an Irish breeding site. Seabird 13, 67-69.

Inger, R., Ruxton, G.D., Newton J., Colhoun, K., Robinson, J.A., Jackson, L. and Bearhop, S. 2006. Temporal and interpopulation variation in prey choice of wintering geese determined by stable isotope analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology 75, 1190-1200.

Merne, O.J. 2004. Common Sterna hirundo and Arctic Terns S. paradisaea breeding in Dublin Port, County Dublin, 1995-2003. Irish Birds 7, 369-374.

Merne, O.J., Madden, B., Archer, E. and Porter, B. 2008. Autumn roosting by terns in south Dublin Bay. Irish Birds 8, 335-310.

Mitchell, P.I., Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N. and Dunn, T.E. 2004. Seabird Populations of Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser. London.

Robinson, J.A., Colhoun, K., Gudmundsson, G.A., Boertmann, D., Merne, O.J., O Briain, M., Portig, A.A., Mackie, K. and Boyd, H. 2004. Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota (East Canadian High Arctic Population) in Canada, Ireland, Iceland, France, Greenland, Scotland, Wales, England, the Channel Isles and Spain 1960/61 – 1999/2000. Waterbird Review Series, The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust/Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Slimbridge.

Widdows, J., Bale, A.J., Brinsley, M.D., Somerfield, P. and Uncles, R.J. 2007. An assessment of the potential impact of dredging activity on the Tamar Estuary over the last century: II. Ecological changes and potential drivers. Hydrobiologia 588, 97-108.



Terrestrial Ecology

Altringham, J.D., 2003. British Bats, London: HarperCollins.

CIEEM, 2013. Technical Guidance Series – Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Winchester: CIEEM.

Reid, N., Dingerkus, S.K., Stone, R.E., Pietravalle, S., Kelly, R., Buckley, J., Beebee, T.J.C. & Wilkinson, J.W, 2013. National Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 58. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

Richardson, P. 2011. ‘Bats and Hedgerows – Are Bat Surveyors on the Right Track?’, In Practice, December 2011.

NPWS, 2013. Actions for Biodiversity 2011-2016: Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland

Hundt L., ed. 2012. Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition, United Kingdom: Bat Conservation Trust.

Marine Benthic Ecology

Alabaster, J.S. and Lloyd, R. (1980) Water quality criteria for freshwater fish. Butterworths, London.

Anon (2009) Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish – available from the California Department of Transportation website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/fisheries_bioacoustics.htm

Anon (2012) Compendium of pile driving sound data available from the California Department of Transportation website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/fisheries_bioacoustics.htm.

Blott SJ and K Pye, 2001, GRADISTAT, Earth Surf Proc and Landforms 26: 1237-1248.

Bolam, S.G. (2012) ‘Impacts of dredged material disposal on macrobenthic invertebrate communities: A comparison of structural and functional (secondary production) changes at disposal sites around England and Wales.’ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 2199-2210.

Bolam, S.G., Barry, J., Bolam, T., Mason, C., Rumney, H.S., Thain, J.E. & Law, R.J. (2011) ‘Impacts of maintenance dredged material disposal on macrobenthic structure and secondary productivity.’ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 2230-2245.

Bolam, S.G., Rees, H.L., Somerfield, P., Smith, R., Clarke, K.R., Warwick. R.M., Atkins, M. & Garnacho, E. (2006) ‘Ecological consequences of dredged material disposal in the marine environment: A holistic assessment of activities around the England and Wales coastline.’ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 415-426.



Bolam, S.G. and Rees, H.L. (2003) ‘Minimizing Impacts of Maintenance Dredged Material Disposal in the Coastal Environment: A Habitat Approach.’ Environmental Management, 32(2), 171-188.

Carlson, T., Hastings, M. and Popper, A. N. (2007) Update on Recommendations for Revised Interim Sound Exposure Criteria for Fish during Pile Driving Activities. – available from the California Department of Transportation website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/fisheries_bioacoustics.htm

Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. and Reker, J.B. (2004). The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version)

Coull, K.A., Johnstone, R., and Rogers, S.I. (1998) Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters. Published and distributed by UKOOA Ltd., v + 58 pp.

Drabble, R.C., (2012) Projected entrainment of fish resulting from aggregate dredging. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64, 373–381.

Dublin City Council (2012) Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Works Extension, Volume 1, Environmental Impact Statement, March 2012.

Dunlop, N. (2009) A guide to sea angling in the eastern fisheries region. Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, Blackrock, Co. Dublin.

Elliott, M., Whitfield, A.K., Potter, I.C., Blaber, S.J.M, Cyrus, D. P., Nordilie, F.G., Harrison T.D. (2007) the guild approach to categorizing estuarine fish assemblages: a global review. Fish and Fisheries. 8, 241-268

Ellis, J.R., Milligan, S.P., Readdy, L., Taylor, N. and Brown, M.J. 2012. Spawning and nursery grounds of selected fish species in UK waters. Sci. Ser. Tech. Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 147: 56 pp.

Ellis,J. R., Rogers, S. I. and Freeman M. (2000) Demersal Assemblages in the Irish Sea, St George’s Channel and Bristol Channel. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 51, 299–315

Franco, A., Elliott, M., Franzoi, P., Torricelli, P., (2008). Life strategies of fishes in European estuaries: the functional guild approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series 354, 219-228.

Fredette, T.J. & French, G.T. (2004) ‘Understanding the physical and environmental consequences of dredged material disposal: history in New England and current perspectives.’ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49, 93-102.

Gibson, R. N.and Ezzi, A. (1980) The biology of the scaldfish, Arnoglossus laterna (Walbaum) on the west coast of Scotland. Journal of Fish Biology 17, 565-575

Harrison, T. D. and Kelly, F. L. (2013) Development of an estuarine multi-metric fish index and its application to Irish transitional waters. Ecological Indicators 34, 494– 506



Holme, N.A. and McIntyre, A.D. (1984): Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos. Second Edition IBP Handbook 16.–399 pp. Oxford-London-Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

IFI (2008) Sampling fish for the water Framework Directive – Transitional Waters 2008 (Liffey Estuary). Available on line at WFDFish.ie

IFI (2008) Sampling fish for the water Framework Directive – Transitional Waters 2008 (Tolka Estuary). Available on line at WFDFish.ie

IFI (2010) Sampling fish for the water Framework Directive – Transitional Waters 2008 (Liffey Estuary). Available on line at WFDFish.ie

IFI (2010) Sampling fish for the water Framework Directive – Transitional Waters 2008 (Tolka Estuary). Available on line at WFDFish.ie

INFOMAR (2010). Seabed Classification Chart for the East Coast. INFOMAR Programme East Coast – Acoustic seabed classification.

Kennedy, R. (2008) ‘Pre-Dredging Sediment Assessment, Burford Bank, Dublin.’ on behalf of Dublin Port by Moore Marine Services, November 2008.

Larson, K., Moehl, C., 1990. Fish entrainment by dredges in Grays Harbor, Washington. In: Simenstad, C.A. (Ed.), Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes. Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, pp. 102–112.

LaSalle, MW, Clarke, DG, Homziak, J, Lunz, JD, and Fredette TJ (1991) Dredging Operations Technical Support Program. A Framework for Assessing the Need for Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging and Disposal Operations. US Army Corp of Engineers. Washington DC

Maurer, D., Keck, R.T., Tinsman, J.C. & Leatham, W.A. (1981) (a) ‘Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material: Part I-Mollusca.’ Marine Environmental Research, 4, 299-319.

Maurer, D., Keck, R.T., Tinsman, J.C. & Leatham, W.A. (1981) (b) ‘Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material: Part II-Crustacea.’ Marine Environmental Research, 5, 301-317.

Maurer, D., Keck, R.T., Tinsman, J.C. & Leatham, W.A. (1982) ‘Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material: Part III-Polychaeta.’ Marine Environmental Research, 6, 49-68.

McGraw, K., Armstrong, D., 1990. Fish entrainment by dredges in Grays Harbor, Washington. In: Simenstad, C.A. (Ed.), Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes. Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle.

Moore, P.G. (1977). Inorganic particulate suspensions in the sea and their effects on marine animals Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 15: 225-363



Newcombe, C. P., and Jensen, J.O.T. (1996) channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative risk assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16. 693-727.

Popper A.N, Carlson T.J. Hawkins A.D., Southall, B.L, and Gentry R.L (2006) Interim Criteria for Injury of Fish Exposed to Pile Driving Operations: A White Paper . – available from the California Department of Transportation website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/fisheries_bioacoustics.htm

Popper, A. N., Halvorsen, M. B. Casper B.M. and Carlson, T. J. (2013) Effects of pile driving sounds on non-auditory tissues of fish – Final report. Published by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Headquarters, Division of Environmental Sciences Herndon, Virginia

Reine, K., Clarke, D., 1998. Entrainment by Hydraulic Dredges – A Review of Potential Impacts. Technical Note DOER-E1. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Servizi, J.A and Martens, D. W. (1992) Sublethal responses of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) to suspended sediments. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science. 49. 1389-1395.

Shelton, R.G.J. (1973) In, North Sea Science edited by E.D. Goldberg, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. USA 415-436

Smith, S.D.A. and Rule, M.J. (2001) ‘The effects of dredge-spoil dumping on a shallow water soft-sediment community in the Solitary Islands Marine Park, NSW, Australia.’ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 1040 – 1048.

Truitt, C.L., (1988) Dredged Material Behavior During Open-Water Disposal Journal of Coastal Research 4. 489-497

Walker A.J.M and Rees E.I.S. (1980) ‘Benthic fauna and sludge dumping in Dublin Bay.’ Irish Fisheries Investigations, Series B (Marine). No. 22. 59pp.

Ware, S., Bolam, S.G. & Rees, H.L. (2010) ‘Impact and recovery associated with the deposition of capital dredgings at UK disposal sites: Lessons for future licensing and monitoring.’ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60, 79-90.

Westerberg, H., Ronnback, P and Frimansson H. (1996) Effects of suspended sediment on cod eggs and larvae and on the behaviour of adult herring and cod. ICES (Marine Environmental Quality Committee) CM 1996/E: 26.

Wheeler, A. (1978) Key to the fishes of Northern Europe. Fredrick Warne, London 380pp

Wilber, D.H., Clarke, D.G. & Rees, S.I. (2007) ‘Responses of benthic macroinvertebrates to thin-layer disposal of dredged material in Mississippi Sound, USA.’ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 42-52.



Wilber D. H and Clarke, D.G. (2001) Biological effects of suspended sediments: a review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 21. 855 -875.

Wright, P. J., Jensen, H. and Tuck, I. (2000) The influence of sediment type on the distribution of the lesser sandeel, Ammodytes marinus. Journal of Sea Research 44, 243-256

Yelverton, J. T., Richmond, D. R., Hicks, W., Saunders, K., and Fletcher, E. R. (1975) The relationship between fish size and underwater blast. Report DNA 3677T, Director Defence Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC

Marine Mammals

Anguilar de Soto, N., Rogan, E., O’Cadhla, O., Gordon, J., Mackey, M. & Connolly, N. (2004). Cetaceans and Seabirds of Irelands Atlantic Margin, Volume III - Acoustic surveys for cetaceans. Report on research carried out under the Irish Infrastructure Programme (PIP): Rockall Studies Group (RSG) projects 98/6 and 00/13, Porcupine Studies Group P00/15 and Offshore Support Group (OSG) project 99/38. 61pp.

Anderwald, P., Coleman, M., O’Donovan, M., Pinfield, R., Walshe, L., Haberlin, D., Jessopp, M. and Cronin, M. (2011). Marine mammal monitoring in Broadhaven Bay 2010. Progress Report to RSK Environment Limited Group. Coastal and Marine Research Centre, University College Cork, Ireland

Au, W.L. (1993). Sonar of Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Akamatsu, T., Hatakeyama, Y., Kojima, T., & Soeda, H. (1992). The rate with which a harbor porpoise uses echolocation at night. Pp. 299-316. In: Marine mammal sensory systems (Eds. J.A. Thomas et al.) Plenum Press, New York.

Berrow, S., J. O‘Brien, C. Ryan, E/ McKeogh and I. O’Connor (2011) Inshore Boat-based Surveys for Cetaceans – Irish Sea. Report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Irish Whale and Dolphin Group. pp.24.

Berrow, S.D., Hickey, R., O’Brien, J. O’Connor, I. and McGrath, D. (2008) Habour Porpoise Survey 2008. Report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Irish Whale and Dolphin Group. pp.33.

Berrow, S.D. and Rogan, E. (1997) Cetaceans stranded on the Irish coast, 1901-1995. Mammal Review 27(1), 51-76.

Berrow, S.D., Whooley, P. & Ferris, S. (2002). Irish Whale and Dolphin Group Cetacean Sighting Review (1991-2001). Irish Whale and Dolphin Group: 29pp

Berrow, S. D., Whooley, P. & Ferriss, S. (2001). Irish whale and dolphin group cetacean sighting schemes. Development of a system to record sightings of cetaceans in Irish waters. Final report to the Heritage Council (Ireland). Irish Whale and Dolphin Group. 29pp.



Bonnes, D., Bowen, W. & Oftedal, O. T. (1994). Evidence of a maternal foraging cycle resemling that of otariid seals in a small phocid seal, the harbour seal. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 34, 95-104.

CDM (2012) Dublin City Council Ringsend wastewater treatment works extension Environmental Impact Assessment. Vol 1. Environmental Impact Statement. Dublin 471pp.

Cronin, M A. (2007). The abundance, habitat use and haul-out behaviour of the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina vitulina) in southwest Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis. University College Cork. 262 pp.

Cronin, M., Duck, C., Ó Cadhla, O., Nairn, R., Strong, D. & O’ Keeffe, C. (2004). Harbour seal population assessment in the Republic of Ireland: August 2003. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 11. National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Governement, Dublin, Ireland.

Cronin, M., Duck, C., Ó Cadhla, O., Nairn, R., Strong, D. & O’ Keeffe, C. (2007). An assessment of population size and distribution of harbour seals in the Republic of Ireland during the moult season in August 2003. Journal of Zoology, 273, 131-139.

Cronin, M. A.., Kavanagh, A. & E. Rogan. (2008). The foraging ecology of the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina vitulina) in Ireland. Final Report to the Marine Institute. Project ST05/12. 145 pp.

Duck, C. & Morris, C. (2013) An aerial survey of harbour seals in Ireland: Part 2: Galway Bay to Carlingford Lough. August-September 2012. Unpublished report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht, Dublin.

Edds, P.L. (1988). Characteristics of finback Balaenoptera physalus vocalizations in the St. Lawrence Estuary. Bioacoustics, 1, 131-149.

Evans, W.E. (1973). Echolocation by marine delphinids and one species of freshwater dolphin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 191-199.

Evans, P. G. H. (1987). The natural history of whales and dolphins. HELM editions. 343 pp.

Evans, P.G.H. (1992) Status Review of Cetaceans in British and Irish Waters. UK Department of the Environment, London.

Evans, P. G. H. & Miller, L. A. (2004). Proceedings of the workshop on active sonar and cetaceans. ECS Newsletter Special Issue No. 42. European Cetacean Society

Gausland, I. (2000). The impact of seismic surveys on marine life. The Leading Edge, 19, 903-905.

Goodson, A.D., Kastelein, R.A., and Sturtivant, C.R. (1995). Source levels and echolocation signal characteristics of juvenile harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena. Pp. 41-54. In: Harbour porpoises, laboratory studies to reduce bycatches (Eds. P.E. Nachtigall et al.). De Spil, Woerden, The Netherlands.



Goold, J. C. (1996). Broadband characteristics and propagation of air gun acoustic emissions in the southern Irish Sea. Report to Chevron UK, Aran Energy and Repsol.

Gordon, J., Berrow, S.D., Rogan, E & Fennelly, S. (2000) Acoustic and visual survey of cetaceans off the Mullet Peninsula, Co Mayo. Irish Naturalists' Journal. 26, 7/8, pp. 251-259.

Hayes, S, Costa, D. Harvey, J. & Le Boeuf, J. ( 2004). Aquatic mating systems of the pacific harbour seal:are males defending the hotspot? Marine Mammal Science, 20, 3, 639-656.

Hammond, P. S. (and 10 others) (1995). Distribution and abundance of the harbour porpoise and other small cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. Final report to the European Commissionunder contract LIFE 92-2/UK/027.

Ingram, S. N. (2000). The ecology and conservation of bottlenose dolphins in the Shannon Estuary, Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College Cork. 213 pp.

Ingram, E., Englund, A. & Rogan, E. (2001). An extensive survey of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus) on the west coast of Ireland. Final report to the Heritage Council (Ireland). Grant WLD/2001.42. 17pp.

Ingram, S.N. & Rogan, E. (2003) Estimating abundance, site fidelity and ranging patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Shannon estuary and selected area of the west-coast of Ireland. Report to National Parks and Wildlife Service, December 2003. 28pp

Ingram, S.N., Englund, A., & Rogan, E. (2003). Habitat use, abundance and site fidelity of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Connemara coastal waters, Co Galway. Report to the Heritage Council (Ireland) Report no.12314. 25pp.

ITAP – Institut für Technische und Angewandte Physik GmbH (2005). Ermittlung der Schalldruck- Spitzenpegel aus Messungen der Unterwassergeräusche von Offshore-WEA und Offshore- Rammarbeiten. Report commissioned by biola (biologisch-landschaftsökologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft).

IWDG (2001). http://www.iwdg.ie/iscope/sightings/

Ketten, D. R., Lien, L. & Todd, S. (1993). Blast injury in humpback whale ears: Evidence and implications. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 94, 3, 2:1849-1850.

Kiely, O.R.M. (1998). Population biology of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus Fabricius 1791) in western Ireland. Unpublished PhD. thesis, University College Cork. Ireland.

Lockley, R.M. (1966). The distribution of grey and common seals on the coasts of Ireland. Irish Naturalists’ Journal. 15, 136-143.

Mohl, B. and Andersen, S.H. (1973). Echolocation: high frequency component in the click of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena L.). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1368-1372.



Moore, S.E. and Ridgway, S.H. (1995). Whistles produced by common dolphins from Southern California Bight. Aquatic Mammals, 21, 51-63.

Northridge, S., Tasker, M. L., Webb, A. & Williams, J. M. (1995). Seasonal relative abundance of harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena (L.), white-beaked dolphins Lagenorhynchus albirostris (Gray) and minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata (Lacépède) in the waters around the British Isles. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 52, 55-66.

NPWS (2013). Guidance to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound sources in Irish waters. National Parks and Wildlife Service. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

O Brien, J.M., Berrow, S. D., Ryan, C., McGrath, D., O Connor, I., Pesante, P. Burrows, G., Masset, N., Klotzer, V & P. Whooley (2009). A note on long-distance matches of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) around the Irish coast using photo identification. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 11(1), 71-76.

O’Cadhla, Mackey, M, Anguilar de Soto, N., Rogan, E., & Connolly, N. (2004). Cetaceans and Seabirds of Irelands Atlantic Margin, Volume II – Cetacean distribution and abundance. Report on research carried out under the Irish Infrastructure Programme (PIP): Rockall Studies Group (RSG) projects 98/6 and 00/13, Porcupine Studies Group P00/15 and Offshore Support Group (OSG) project 99/38. 61pp.

Ó Cadhla, O., Strong, D., O’Keeffe, C., Coleman, M., Cronin, M., Duck, C., Murray, T., Dower, P., Nairn, R., Murphy, P., Smiddy, P., Saich, C., Lyons, D. & Hiby, A.R. (2007). An assessment of the breeding population of grey seals in the Republic of Ireland (2008) Irish Wildlife Manuals. No. 34. National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. 50pp.

Ó Cadhla, O. & Strong, D. (2007). Grey seal moult population survey in the Republic of Ireland, 2007. Report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. 22pp.

Ó Cadhla, O., Keena, T., Strong, D., Duck, C., & Hiby, L (2013) Monitoring the breeding population of grey seals in Ireland, 2009-2012. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 74. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

Pollock, C. M., Reid, J. B., Webb, A & Tasker, M. L. (1997). The distribution of seabirds and cetaceans in the waters around Ireland. JNCC Report No. 267. JNCC, Peterborough. 167pp.

Pollack, C. M., Mavor, R., Weir, C. R, Reid, A., White, R. W., Tasker, M. L., Webb, A. & Reid, J. B. (2000). The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in the Atlantic Frontier nort and west of Scotland. JNCC, Peterborough. 92 pp.

Richardson, W. J., Greene, C.R., Malme, C. I. & Thompson, D. H. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, London, 576pp.

Rogan, E., Penrose, R., Gassner, I., Mackey, M., & Clayton, P. (2001). Marine Mammal Strandings: A collaborative study for the Irish Sea. Marine Institute/Wales INTERREG Report No. 8, 53pp.



Roycroft, D., Cronin, M., Mackey, M., Ingram S.N. and Ó Cadhla, O. (2007). Risk Assessment for Marine Mammal and Seabird Populations in South-Western Irish Waters (R.A.M.S.S.I.) Published by: Higher Education Authority - An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideacha , 198 pp.

Summers, C.F., Warner, P.J., Nairn, R.G.W., Curry, M.G. & Flynn, J. (1980). An assessment of the status of the common seal Phoca vitulina vitulina in Ireland. Biological Conservation 17, 115-123.

Terhune, J. & Turnbull, S. (1995) Variation in the psychometric functions and hearing thresholds of a harbour seal. In: Kastelein RA, Thomas JA, Nachtigall PE (eds) Sensory systems of aquatic mammals. De Spil Publ, Woerden, Netherlands, p 81-93

Thompsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W. (2006). Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish, biola, Hamburg, Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd. 62 pp.

Thompsen, F., McCully, S., Wood, D., Pace, F. & White, P. (2009). A generic investigation into noise profiles of marine dredging in relation to the acoustic sensitivity of the marine fauna in UK waters with particular emphasis on aggregate dredging. Phase 1 Scoping and review of key issues. CEFAS contract report C3312. MEPF Ref No. MEPF/08/921

Thompson, P. M. & Miller, D. (1990). Summer foraging activity and movements of radio-tagged common seals in the Moray Firth Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 27, 492-501.

Teilmann, J., J. Carstensen, R. Dietz, S. M. C. Edr´en and S. M. Andersen. (2006). Final report on aerial monitoring of seals near Nysted Offshore Wind Farm. Technical report to Energi E2 A/S. National Environmental Research Institute. 41 pp.

Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O.H., Skov, H. and Teilmann, J. (2003). Short-term effects ofthe construction of wind turbines on harbour porpoises at Horns Reef. Technical report to Techwise A/S. Hedeselskabet.

Tougaard, J., J. Carstensen, J. Teilmann, H. Skov and P. Rasmussen. 2009. Pile driving zone of responsive extends beyond 20 km for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.))Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126:11–14

Van Parjis, S.M., Thompson, P.M., Tollit, D.J. & Mackay, A. (1997). Distribution and activity of male harbour seals during the mating season. Animal Behaviour 54, 1, 35-43.

Van Parijs, S.M., Janik V.M. & Thompson, P.M. (2000). Display area size, tenure length and site fidelity in the aquatically mating male harbour seal. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78, 2209 - 2217.

Van der Heul, K., Verboom, Triesscheijn & Jennings (2006).The influence of underwater data transmission sounds on the displacement behaviour of captive harbour seals (Phoca vitulina).Marine Environmental Research, 61, 19–39.



Chapter 6 Landscape and Visual

DoEHLG “Landscape and Landscape Assessment” (June 2000)

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA) by The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002)

Chapter 7 Air and Climate

Noise and Vibration

British Standard, 1997. BS4142:1997 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas.

British Standard, 2009. BS5228:2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites.

British Standard, 1992. BS6472:1992 Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibrations in Buildings.

British Standard, 1993. BS7385:1993 Evaluation and Measurement fro Vibration in Buildings.

British Standard, 2003. BS7445:2003 Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise.

British Standard, 1999. BS8223:1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice.

Department of Transport (Welsh Office), 1988. Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN).

Dublin Port Company. 2014. Statement of Need.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements).

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE), 2012. Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Applications, Surveys and Assessments in Relation to Scheduled Activities (NG4).

International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2003: ISO1996-1:2003 Acoustics - Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise.

National Roads Authority (NRA), 2004. Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise & Vibration in National Road Schemes.



UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), 2008. Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 7 Noise & Vibration.

World Health Organisation (WHO), 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise.

World Health Organisation (WHO), 2009. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe.

World Health Organisation (WHO), 2012. Methodological Guidance for Estimating the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise.

Air and Climate

Building Research Establishment (2003) Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities. Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (2009), Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, Nickel and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Regulations 2009 (SI 58 of 2009). Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2011), Air Quality Standards Regulation 2011 (SI 180 of 2011). Environmental Protection Agency (2002), Guidelines on Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements. Environmental Protection Agency (2003), Advice Notes on Current Practice in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. Environmental Protection Agency (2010), Odour Impact Assessment Guidance for EPA Licensed Sites (Guidance Note AG5, 2010). Environmental Protection Agency (2010), Guidance Note AG4 Air Dispersion Modelling for Industrial Installations. German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2002), Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control: TA Luft. Health and Safety Authority (HSA) (2011), Code of Practice for the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Chemical Agents) Regulations 2001 (SI No. 619 of 2001). National Roads Authority (2011), Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality during the Planning and Construction of National Roads Schemes. UK Environment Agency (2011), IPPC H1 Guidance note “Horizontal Guidance Note H1- Annex (f) Air Emissions. UK Environment Agency (2011), Odour Management Guidance (H4 Guidance, 2011). UK Highways Agency (2008), “Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB). US Environmental Protection Agency (1995), AP 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors” (5th Edition).



World Health Organisation (2005), Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide Global update.

Chapter 8 Material Assets

National Roads Authority (NRA), September 2007. Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) May 1994. Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments, NRA Circulars / Policy Statements; Department of Transport / Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government / Dublin Transportation Office (2003). Traffic Management Guidelines,

Chapter 9 Coastal Processes

Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) (2010) Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant Long Sea Outfall - Dublin Bay. Marine Survey Report OPW, Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study, Phase 3, Work Packages 2, 3 & 4A (2010) Strategic Assessment of Coastal Flooding and Erosion Extents – North East Coast - Dalkey Island to Omeath. OPW, Irish Coastal Wave & Water Level Modelling Study (2013 unpublished). Coastal Areas Potentially Vulnerable to Wave Overtopping.

Chapter 10 Water

Bathing Water Quality Regulations, 2008 (SI No. 79 of 2008)

CIRIA (2001) Good practice guidelines on the control of water pollution from construction sites

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment

Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

Council Directive (76/160/EEC) of 8 December 1976 concerning the quality of bathing water

DCMNR (1988) Fisheries Guidelines for Local Authority Works.

DEHLG (2013) Ireland’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive Article 19 Report. Initial Assessment, GES and Targets and Indicators.



Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)

Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality

Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 (Urban Waste Water Treatment) Regulations, 1994 as amended in 1999)

Environment Agency () Working at construction and demolition site, Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG6)

EPA (2013) The Quality of Bathing Water in Ireland, An Overview for the year 2012. EPA, Wexford.

EPA (2011) Water Status 2007 – 2009. Water Framework Status Updated based on Monitoring Results 2007-2009. EPA Wexford.

EPA (2010) Water Quality in Ireland 2007-2009. EPA Wexford.

ERFB (2006) Guidelines on protection of fisheries habitats during construction projects

European Communities (Marine Strategy Framework) Regulations, 2011 (SI No. 249 of 2011)

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) for domestic waste discharges to the environment

Quality of Bathing Waters Regulations, 1992 (SI No. 155 of 1992)

Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (SI No. 254 of 2001)

The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

Chapter 11 Geology and Soils

Institute of Geologists of Ireland, September 2002. Geology in Environmental Impact Statements – a guide

Ordnance Survey of Ireland, Discovery Series,

Ordnance Survey of Ireland online historical maps and aerial photographs,

Environmental Protection Agency online mapping www.epa.ie,

Geological Survey of Ireland 1:100,000 scale bedrock series geology map Sheet 16 Geology of Kildare-Wicklow, 1994.



Geological Survey of Ireland online mapping public datasets viewer http://www.gsi.ie/Mapping.htm,

IGSL, Ground Investigation Report, Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, 2014.

Glover Site Investigations Ltd., Dublin Port Borehole and CPT Contract, Alexandra Quay East. Report No. 06-221-AQ, 2006.

Bone B.,et al. (2004).Guidance on the use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil Pollution .Environment Agency Suzdalev S.(2012) Contaminants-Binders-Sediments, Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments Baltic Sea Region Programme Project No #39.SMOC Available on line : http://smocs.eu Blažauskas N, Larsson L., Rostmark S., (2012). Technologies and Solutions for Handling of Contaminated Sediment .State of the Art Review Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments. Baltic Sea Region Programme Project No #39 Harrington J.,Smith G. (2013) Guidance on the Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in Ireland, School of Building & Civil Engineering Cork Institute of Technology Report commissioned by Environmental Protection Agency (Strive Small Scale Study) October 2013 McCoole F., et al (2013). National Waste Report 2011. Environmental Protection Agency, Dublin, Ireland Lennart Larsson (2011).Screening Matrix for Initial Evaluation of Methods for Treatment of Sediments ,Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments Baltic Sea Region Programme Project No #39. Available on line : http://smocs.eu Leppänen M. et al Mass stabilisation TBT -contaminated sediment as a part of the Harbour in Helsinki. Ramboll Finland Ltd, Espoo &Helsinki, Finland. Forsman J. et al (2008) Case stories, Harbours – Mass stabilisation of contaminated dredging mud in Sörnäinen, Helsinki. International Mass Stabilisation Conference 2008, October 8th -10th 2008, Lahti, Finland. Ash Remediation Management. (2013). Case Study – Falmouth Harbour, Cornwall Boskalis Dolman bv (2013). Project sheet Stabilization. From dredged sediment to engineered structural fill, Port of New York and New Jersey, USA Wilhelmsson A, et al (2010). Lab tests on sediment from Port of Gävle -Potential assessment of using fly ash as a binding agent for stabilization and solidification of dredged material. Varmeforsk Stockholm Göran H., et al (2012 Field test in Port of Gävle, Sweden. Ramboll Finland. Available on line : http://smocs.eu Suzdalev S., Rogbeck Y., (2012). Review of Potential Applications for s/s. Available on line : http://smocs.eu Autiola M., et al (2012).SMOCS (Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments in Baltic Sea Region) Field test in Port of Kokkola, Finland . Lappeenranta University of Technology Faculty of Technology. LUT Chemistry



Forsman, J. et al (2008). Case stories, Harbours – Mass stabilisation of contaminated dredging mud in Sörnäinen, Helsinki. International Mass Stabilisation Conference 2008, October 8th -10th 2008, Lahti, Finland.

Chapter 12 Cultural Heritage

Bangerter, Rex, 2008 ‘Detailed archaeological investigation, Timber Wreck, Dublin Port, |Dublin, 08E497, 08D038’, unpublished report of the Archaeological Diving Company Ltd.

Bangerter, Rex, 2008a ‘Underwater archaeological assessment, Dublin Harbour Quay, Poolbeg, Dublin Port, Co. Dublin, 08D085, 08R272’, unpublished report of the Archaeological Diving Company Ltd.

Brady, Karl, 2008 Shipwreck Inventory of Ireland. Louth, Meath, Dublin and Wicklow (Stationary Office, Dublin 2008), Shipwreck Inventory of Ireland. Louth, Meath, Dublin and Wicklow (Stationary Office, Dublin).

Brady, Niall, 2002 ‘Archaeological monitoring and excavation, Gas 2025 Irish Subsea Interconnector, Gormanston landfall Co. Meath, 02E467 02E948, interim report’, unpublished report of the Archaeological Diving Company Ltd.

Brady, Niall, 2009 ‘Dublin’s maritime setting and the archaeology of its medieval harbours’, in John Bradley, Alan Fletcher, Anngret Simms (eds), Dublin in the medieval world. Studies in honour of Howard B. Clarke ((Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2009), pp 295-315.

Bunbury, Turtle, http://www.turtlebunbury.com/published/published_books/docklands/heroes/pub_ books_docklands_stoney.html

Cox, Ronald, 1990 Bindon Blood Stoney, Biography of a Port Engineer (Dublin Institute of Engineers).

Daly, Gerard, 1991 ‘Captain Bligh in Dublin, 1800-1801’, Dublin Historical Record 44.1: 20-33

De Courcy, John, 1988 Anna Liffey. The River of Dublin, (O’Brien Press, Dublin),

Dictionary of Irish Architects, 1720-1940, Irish Architectural Archive online source http://www.dia.ie/

Irish Coast Pilot 1954 Tenth edition (Hydrogrpahic Department, London).

Frazer, William, 2007 ‘Berth 50A, Dublin Port’, in Isabel Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2004 (Wordwell, Dublin), 120.537.

Giamcometti, Antoine, 2012 ‘Pigeon House Fort, Ringsend’, in Isabel Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2009 (Wordwell, Dublin), 94.357.



Gregory, Niall, 2004 ‘Poolbeg’, in Isabel Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2002 (Wordwell, Bray), 182.646.

Kerrigan, Paul, 1995 Castles and fortifications in Ireland 1485-1945 (Collins Press, Cork).

Kiely, Jacinta, 2007 ‘Poolbeg Yacht and Boat Club, Pigeon House Road, Dublin’, in Isabel Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2004 (Wordwell, Dublin), 134-5.579.

Lewis, Samuel, 1837 A topographical dictionary of Ireland (London).

Lowth, Cormac, 2010 ‘The Dublin Port diving bell’, International Journal of Diving History, 3.1, available online via http://lugnad.ie/

McGrail, Seán, 1997 ‘The boats and ships of tenth to thirteenth century Dublin; in Seán McGrail, Maritime Archaeology , British Archaeological Reports British Series 256 (Oxford).

McQuade, Melanie, 2003 ‘Final Report of Archaeological Excavation Building C, Spenser Dock, North

Wall Quay, Dublin 1’, Unpublished report, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd.

Murphy, Margaret and Potterton, Michael, 2010 The Dublin region in the middle ages. Settlement, land-use and economy (Four Courts Press, Dublin),

O’Connor, David, 2012 ‘Cultural Heritage Environmental Report for the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, North Wall Quay Extension, Dublin Port, Dublin 1’, unpublished report of Magnus Archaeology, Draft dated 22/04/2012.

O’Donovan, Edmond, 2003, ‘Berth 51A, Dublin Port, 01E0288’, in Isabel Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2001 (Wordwell, Bray), 101.377.

Ó Faoláin, Simon, 2003 ‘Dublin Bay, 01E0283’, in Isabel Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2001 (Wordwell, Bray), 92.356.

Ó Faoláin, Simon, 2003a ‘Dublin Bay, 01E0358’, in Isabel Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2001 (Wordwell, Bray), 92-3.357.

Ó Faoláin, Simon, 2003b ‘Dublin Port, Docks and Shipping Fairway, 01E1004’, in Isabel Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2001 (Wordwell, Bray), 93.358.

Smith, Charles, 1996 Dalkey: society and economy in a small medieval Irish town (Dublin).

Swift, Michael, 1999 Historical maps of Ireland (Parkgate Books, London).

deCourcy, J. W. 1996 The Liffey in Dublin. (Dublin).

Cox, R. C. 1990 Bindon Blood Stoney.Biography of a port engineer. (Dublin).



Cox, R. C. and Gould, M. H. 1998 Civil engineering heritage Ireland.(London).

Gilligan, H.A. 1988 A history of the port of Dublin. (Dublin).

Marmion, A. 1855 The ancient and modern history of the maritime ports of Ireland. (London).

O’Flaherty, G. 1988 ‘Mature and stately, through the city’, in E. Healy, C. Moriarty and G. O’Flaherty (eds) The book of the Liffey from source to the sea. (Dublin), pp. 117-62.

O’Mahony, C. 1993 ‘James Barton, engineer’, Jnl Irish Railway Record Soc.18, 122, p. 269.

Purser Griffith, J. 1879 ‘The improvement of the bar of Dublin Harbour by artificial scour’, Min. Proc. Instn Civil Engineers58 (1878-9), pp. 104-43.

Skempton W. 1975 ‘A history of the steam dredger 1797-1830’, Trans. Newcomen Soc.47, pp. 97-116.

Chapter 13 Human Beings

Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, Inc.(2012). Preparation of a Plan for the Development of Cruise Tourism in Dublin for Dublin Port Company, prepared by Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, Inc.

Central Statistics Office (2011). 2002 and 2011 Census Results. http://census.cso.ie/Census/ . Accessed Jan 2014.

Dublin Docklands Development Authority (2009). Dublin Docklands Development Area Masterplan 2008.

Failte Eireann (2014). Destination Dublin: A Collective Strategy for Tourism Growth to 2020.

Failte Eireann (2013). Tourism Facts 2012.

Irish Exporters Association (2012), Trade and Transport Analysis. http://www.irishexporters.ie . Accessed Feb 2014.

Jim Power Economics (2014). The socio-economic aspects of the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project.

The Competition Authority (2013), Competition in the Irish Ports Sector. http://www.tca.ie/images/uploaded/documents/Ports%20Study%202013.pdf . Accessed Feb 2014.



GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TERM DESCRIPTION

AA Appropriate Assessment AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AAGR Average Annual Growth Rate ABC Construction noise assessment method ABR Alexandra Basin Redevelopment ADCO Archaeological Diving Company Ltd ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers AEP Annual Expedience Probability AERMOD Atmospheric dispersion modeling system AG4 Air dispersion modelling from industrial installations guidance

notes BAT Best Available Technique BCI Bat Conservation Ireland BCT Bat Conservation Trust bgl below ground level Break bulk Loose cargoes such as reels of paper, bales of timber. Also

includes project cargoes such as power transformers, wind turbine components.

Bulk Liquid Primarily comprises petroleum products (such as petrol, diesel, aviation fuel) but also includes products such as molasses.

Bulk solid Products such as animal feed, grains, cereals, peat moss, scrap steel loaded / discharged using quay side cranes with grab attachments.

CD Chart Datum, depths in the Port vary with tidal conditions and all depths (and heights) are referenced to an appropriate datum point called “chart datum”.

CDL Coal Distributors Limited, also refers to a mooring structure on the south side of the River Liffey, near the Poolbeg power station owned by Coal Distributers Limited

CDM CDM Smith, consulting engineers CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CFRAM Catchment Flood Risk and Management CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association CISS cast-in-steel-shell, concrete piers fabricated within a steel

shell. CL Conservation Limit, the number of adult fish of a particular

species that are needed to return to a system each year to spawn in order to maintain a healthy sustainable population in the system.

CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2eq Total estimated greenhouse gas emissions COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to Health CPT Carriage Paid To CRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise



cSAC Candidate Special Area of Conservation CSO Central Statistics Office DAHG Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht dB(A) Decibel, expression of sound level. The (A) denotes that levels

are “A”- weighted. DBT Dibutyltin DDDA Dublin Docklands Development Authority DEDs District Electoral Divisions DCC Dublin City Council DCIHR Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record DEHLG Department of the Environment Heritage and Local

Government DGPS Differential Global Positioning System DHI Danish Hydraulic Institute DIN Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DO Dissolved Oxygen DPC Dublin Port Company Dry Bulk Cargoes of free flowing dry solids such as grain or sand EA Environment Agency EAL Environmental Assessment Level EC European Community EEA European Environment Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMEP European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme, European

policy to identify and measure air pollutants EMS Environmental Management System EPA Environmental Protection Agency EQS Environmental Quality Standard ERBD Eastern River Basin District ES Estuarine Species, fish species dependent on estuaries. ESB Electricity Supply Board, also refers to a mooring structure on

the south side of the River Liffey, near the Poolbeg power station owned by the Electricity Supply Board

EU European Union EUNIS European Nature Information System FRA Flood Risk Assessment FRAM Flood Risk Assessment Management GDA Greater Dublin Area GDP Gross Domestic Product GES Good Environmental Status GGBS Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag GLVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment GPS Global Positioning System GSI Geological Survey of Ireland GHG Green House Gas Gross tonnes

Dublin Port measures cargo tonnage in gross tonne. The CSO , on the other hand, uses net tonnes. In the case of bulk liquid, bulk solid and break bulk, gross tonnes and net tonnes are the



same. For unitised freight (Ro-Ro or Lo-Lo), gross tonnes includes the weight of the shipping container or trailer; net tonnes includes the weight of the goods themselves plus immediate packaging. For port operations, gross tonnes is a more useful measure as ship carrying capacity, crane handling capacities and road / rail capacities are determined by gross tonnage.

HCB Hexachlorobenzene HD Hydro Dynamic Hmo Significant wave height H2S Hydrogen sulphide HAT Highest Astronomical Tide Hectare Land areas in Dublin Port are referred to in hectares (where

one hectare is equivalent to 2.47 acres and is equal to 10,000m2).

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HS Hydrographic Surveys Ltd., environmental and hydrographic

survey company HSA Health and Safety Authority Hz Hertz, SI unit of frequency. It is defined as the number of

cycles per second of a periodic phenomenon. ICAN noise and vibration consultancy ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites ICPSS Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study IFI Inland Fisheries Ireland IGSL Ground investigation and geotechnical company IMO International Maritime Organization INFOMAR Integrated Mapping for the Sustainable Development of

Ireland's Marine Resources. INSS Irish National Seabed Survey IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention Control ISO International Standards Organisation ISPS International Ship and Port Security code, originally introduced

by the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) and later incorporated into EU legislation.

IQI Infaunal Quality Index, assessment of the ecological status based on the soft sediment infaunal communities of transitional and coastal waters.

ITAP Institut für technische und angewandte Physik GmbH, a measuring body for noise emission

ITM Irish Transverse Mercator, geographic coordinate system for Ireland

IUCN International Union for Nature Conservation IWeBS Irish Wetland Bird Survey IWDG Irish Whale and Dolphin Group MS Marine Stragglers, fish species which are fully marine and are

only occasionally found in the lower reaches of estuaries. JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee LAeq The continuous equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level.

This is an “average” of the sound pressure level. LAmax This is the maximum A-weighed sound level measured during

a sample period.



LAmin This is the minimum A-weighted sound level measured during a sample period.

Lnight,outside Threshold of night noise exposure for the purposes of assessing overall annoyance.

LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide Lo-Lo Lift-on Lift-off , cargo mode which involves shipping containers

lifted on and off ships with quayside cranes LOI Loss on Ignition, method of calculating organic matter content

of soil samples LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From

Ships MDS Multidimensional Scaling MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee MHWM Mean High Water Mark MIKE Coastal process modelling software MM Marine Migrant, marine fish species that use estuaries

primarily as nursery grounds but usually spawn and spend much of their adult life at sea, while often returning seasonally to estuaries when adult.

MMO

Marine Mammal Observer, a qualified marine mammal observer is a visual observer who has undergone formal marine mammal observation training.

MOLA Murray Ó Laoire Architects, architecture company MRP Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSL Mean Sea Level MTL Marine Terminals Ltd., shipping & forwarding agents NBDC National Biodiversity Data Centre NCEHD National Civil Engineering Heritage Database NCT National Car Test NHA Natural Heritage Area NIEA Northern Ireland Environment Agency NIR Natura Impact Report NMI National Museum of Ireland NNG Night Noise Guideline NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOx Oxides of nitrogen NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service NQE North Quay Extension NRA National Roads Authority NSS National Spatial Strategy NTS Non-Technical Summary NTS Not To Scale (drawings) OD Ordnance Datum ODOM Single frequency portable hydrographic echo sounder OEE Office of Environmental Enforcement OMP Odour Management Plan OPW Office of Public Works OSPAR Convention of fifteen Governments of the western coasts and

catchments of Europe, together with the European Union,



aiming to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic.

P&O Ferry operators Pa Pascal, SI derived unit of pressure. It is a measure of force per

unit area, defined as one Newton per square meter. PAH Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PPV Peak Particle Velocity pNHA Proposed Natural Heritage Area PM2.5 Particles measuring 2.5μm or less PM10 Particles measuring 10μm or less PSA Particle Size Assessment PSD Particle Size Distribution pSPA proposed Special Protected Area PTS Permanent Threshold Shift, a permanent elevation of the

hearing threshold due to noise exposure Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, an

intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.

RMP Record of Monuments and Places RNLI Royal National Lifeboat Institution RPII Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland RPS Rural Planning Service, consulting engineers RPS Record of Protected Structures Ro-Ro Roll-on Roll-off, cargo mode which includes freight trailers,

tourist vehicles and trade car imports all of which are driven on or off ferries / specialised ships.

SAC Special Area of Conservation SECA Sulphur Emission Control Area SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency SEL Sound Exposure Level, the constant sound level in one

second, which has the same amount of acoustic energy as the original time-varying sound i.e., the total energy of a sound pulse

SFPA Sea Fisheries Protection Authority SMRU Sea Mammal Research Unit SNIFFER Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental

Research S02 Sulphur Dioxide SPA Special Protection Area SPL Sound Pressure Level, a logarithmic measure of the effective

sound pressure of a sound relative to a reference value. S/S Solidification/Stabilisation, remediation technology that relies

on the reaction between a reagent and soil to reduce the mobility of contaminants

SSC Suspended Sediment Concentration SW Spectral Wave, simplification of surface conditions giving the

distribution of wave energy among different wave frequencies of wave-lengths on the sea surface.

TEN-T Trans-European Transport Networks, a set of integrated



international road, rail, air and water transport networks in Europe.

TEU Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit. Shipping containers come in many lengths including 20”, 30”, 40” and 45”. TEU is used as an industry standard measurement for containers where a 20” is 1.0 TEU , a 40” 2.0 TEU and so forth. The TEU measurement particularly is useful when specifying container ship or container terminal capacities.

TICCIH The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage

Tm Mean wave period TSAS Trophic Status Assessment Scheme TBT Tributyltin TBM Temporary Benchmark TSP Total Suspended Particulate TTS Temporary Threshold Shift, a temporal elevation of the hearing

threshold due to noise exposure UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation Units Unitised Freight can be in the form of shipping containers or trailers.

The sizes of shipping containers vary and are measured in terms of TEU . Trailers vary to a lesser extent and are generally 13.6m long. Trailers are shipped either accompanied (by a road tractor unit and driver) or unaccompanied. In general each unit of unitised freight moved by road will generate at least one HGV movement into the Port and a second one out of the Port.

URPACTII Programme funded by the European Regional Development Fund to develop a strategy for the development of cruise traffic and the urban regeneration of city ports.

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UTC Coordinated Universal Time UWWT Urban Waste Water Treatment VDV Vibration Dose Value VMU Vertical Mixed Use VOC Volatile Organic Compound W Historic shipwreck inventory WFD Water Framework Directive WHO World Health Organisation y-HCH Lindane ZVI Zone of Visual Influence



This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: RPS Elmwood House 74 Boucher Road Belfast BT12 6RZ Telephone 048 90 667914 Facsimile 048 90 668286 email [email protected] Web www.rpsgroup.com/ireland On behalf of: Dublin Port Company Port Centre Alexandra Road Dublin 1 Telephone 01 887 6000 Facsimile 01 836 5142 email [email protected] Web www.dublinport.ie The following sub-consultants carried out specialist studies: ADCO Ltd Archaeology Aquatic Services Unit Fisheries and Benthic Ecology Coastal and Marine Research Group Marine Mammals Natura Environmental Consultants Birds MacCabe Durney Barnes Planning Macroworks Photomontages Dr. Colin Rynne, UCC Industrial Archaeological Heritage

Contact us at

BelfastElmwood House74 Boucher RoadBelfast BT12 6RZ

Tel: +44 28 90667914

Global Office Locations

AustraliaBrazilCanadaRussiaSouth East AsiaThe NetherlandsUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited States of America

Date post:	17-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times